To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Humorme]

Go **** yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

Are you even semi-literate?

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the **** you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

When you have to ask other people about their level of literacy, you are probably lacking in your own.

I offered you precise words, you decided to dishonestly ignore what I wrote and instead chant leftist talking points.

If you wish to dispel your abject ignorance regarding economics, I offered you a link to Rothbard's magnus opus, entirely free of charge.

One can lead a socialist to knowledge, but one cannot make a socialist think.

You talk a good game about honesty, but if you think I'm a socialist you are an idiot. If you think I'm lying to you, you are stupid.

I probably forgot more about socialism than you have the ability to learn. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. I had to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. So, which are you?

 

[Humorme]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

 

[Humorme]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Conservatives may cry foul, but I'd say that is a critical, but (in a strict lawyerly way) semi-accurate portrayal of what the conservative position is.

The problem is, Democrats / left wingers don't have a better solution. Just today Ted Cruz was on the radio reminiscing about a conversation with Bernie Sanders. Cruz asked Sanders what the difference was between Democrats and Socialists on economic issues. Bernie is reputed to not have an answer.

Socialism is not the answer either and has failed every time it's been tried. Even communist China is adopting some free market principles. All we need is a position not yet considered.

Gee, why on EARTH would conservatives "cry foul" about a "lawyerly, semi-accurate" statement that they're evil slave-mongers who want everyone else to suffer? Can't imagine what objection anyone could have to this reasoned, dispassionate assertion.

I also can't imagine what this sort of "damning with faint praise" non-assistance is supposed to offer anyone. If you're going to believe something, try ACTUALLY believing it, instead of stabbing your beliefs in the back and then half-heartedly offering its bleeding corpse to people as "well, it's better than nothing". Not the best sales technique.

The conservatives pretend that I'm a liberal; the liberals pretend I'm conservative. Both sides hate my ideas because their party leadership didn't advocate it first.

Both sides are stuck on stupid, both waiting for the MSM to promote one of the major sides over the other while neither have a good history of working.

Wow, way to make this all about you and your splendiferousness.

I don't know if you're conservative or leftist, and I don't give a shit. Perhaps you could show some interest in actually addressing what I said, which is that if you're going to support something, this half-assed, "It sucks, but it could be worse" bullshit is worse than no support at all.

And calling what Nosmo spewed "lawyerly and semi-accurate" doesn't make you look fair-minded and independent; it makes you look ignorant and mildly deranged.

You sounded like you were semi-intelligent when you admitted that you don't know if I'm conservative or leftist and then go off on a tangent that I offered nothing. At least twice I offered my own solutions to the problems addressed in this thread. You didn't see fit to comment on those, except to show you ARE ignorant by falsely accusing me of " , "It sucks, but it could be worse" bullshit..."

I haven't commented on your solutions either way. I offered up my own.

 

[Humorme]

To those who want to give all the power to the mega-corporations:

Walmart donated $325 million dollars in one year to charity. money cam

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

Same here. A discussion is a back and forth. Just remember, this is a discussion board. You might learn more if you ask questions before being critical. Isn't that what you really got pissed about at me in the first place?

So, your position is that it is a bad thing that Walmart donates to charity?

I thought I had deleted that post as it is too in depth for this thread.

Walmart donates money to charity, but the money does not come from stockholders. The Waltons get to spend a little over 1 percent of their incomes on charitable causes, which helps them on taxes, but the money that is given to charity is actually money they could have paid to their employees that might have been enough to keep those employees off welfare.

Didn't mean to bring it up, but you seem to think why let a crisis go to waste. You are the one who sounds like someone from the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

Are you even semi-literate?

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the **** you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

When you have to ask other people about their level of literacy, you are probably lacking in your own.

I offered you precise words, you decided to dishonestly ignore what I wrote and instead chant leftist talking points.

If you wish to dispel your abject ignorance regarding economics, I offered you a link to Rothbard's magnus opus, entirely free of charge.

One can lead a socialist to knowledge, but one cannot make a socialist think.

You talk a good game about honesty, but if you think I'm a socialist you are an idiot. If you think I'm lying to you, you are stupid.

I probably forgot more about socialism than you have the ability to learn. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. I had to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. So, which are you?

Which what am I?

I am a Libertarian, a Lassez Faire capitalist. I have an MBA with a concentration in Economics. I have a Ph.D. in supply chain management and am published on the subject of alleviating time fences based on the theory of constraints. I studied under Dr. Eli Goldratt. I am everything the left fears and despises.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it.

False.

I stated the fact that labor is the commodity that workers sell.

If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

Synonyms are irrelevant. The definition of the word was supplied by Websters.

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

All men are free to trade to their advantage in a legal manner. If you wish to hire only black people, that is no one's business save your own. If you seek to hire illegal aliens, then you are violating the laws and engaged in a crime. I am not a Ricardian and I support the sovereignty of nations.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

Labor is a commodity that is sold by a worker.

Try again.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it.

False.

I stated the fact that labor is the commodity that workers sell.

If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

Synonyms are irrelevant. The definition of the word was supplied by Websters.

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

All men are free to trade to their advantage in a legal manner. If you wish to hire only black people, that is no one's business save your own. If you seek to hire illegal aliens, then you are violating the laws and engaged in a crime. I am not a Ricardian and I support the sovereignty of nations.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

Labor is a commodity that is sold by a worker.

Try again.

Humorme seems to be confusing labor with laborer. He doesn't comprehend the basics of economics at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

 

[Humorme]

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

Are you even semi-literate?

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the **** you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

When you have to ask other people about their level of literacy, you are probably lacking in your own.

I offered you precise words, you decided to dishonestly ignore what I wrote and instead chant leftist talking points.

If you wish to dispel your abject ignorance regarding economics, I offered you a link to Rothbard's magnus opus, entirely free of charge.

One can lead a socialist to knowledge, but one cannot make a socialist think.

You talk a good game about honesty, but if you think I'm a socialist you are an idiot. If you think I'm lying to you, you are stupid.

I probably forgot more about socialism than you have the ability to learn. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. I had to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. So, which are you?

Which what am I?

I am a Libertarian, a Lassez Faire capitalist. I have an MBA with a concentration in Economics. I have a Ph.D. in supply chain management and am published on the subject of alleviating time fences based on the theory of constraints. I studied under Dr. Eli Goldratt. I am everything the left fears and despises.

You can claim to be anything on the Internet, but anybody that claims I am a socialist in any way, shape, fashion or form is either uneducated, dishonest, looking for a fight, or outright stupid. So, which are you?

 

[Humorme]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it.

False.

I stated the fact that labor is the commodity that workers sell.

If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

Synonyms are irrelevant. The definition of the word was supplied by Websters.

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

All men are free to trade to their advantage in a legal manner. If you wish to hire only black people, that is no one's business save your own. If you seek to hire illegal aliens, then you are violating the laws and engaged in a crime. I am not a Ricardian and I support the sovereignty of nations.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

Labor is a commodity that is sold by a worker.

Try again.

You are a liar. Post 893, you stated plain and simply in one sentence:

"Labor is a commodity."

With respect to the rest of your post, you feel that what is (i.e. hiring so - called "illegal aliens" is illegal) should carry weight, while calling me a socialist, primarily because I know what a lot of the statutes and case law says regarding welfare and the system's view about some perceived duty by government to keep people dependent on the government dole.

In other words, you like to have one set of measuring criteria and standards by which to judge yourself and another to judge me by.

You have all this education (SUPPOSEDLY) but you don't have enough common sense to avoid getting into pissing matches on the Internet with people you think are stupid. So, with your low opinion of me, what would it make you if you were starting arguments with idiots?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it.

False.

I stated the fact that labor is the commodity that workers sell.

If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

Synonyms are irrelevant. The definition of the word was supplied by Websters.

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

All men are free to trade to their advantage in a legal manner. If you wish to hire only black people, that is no one's business save your own. If you seek to hire illegal aliens, then you are violating the laws and engaged in a crime. I am not a Ricardian and I support the sovereignty of nations.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

Labor is a commodity that is sold by a worker.

Try again.

You are a liar. Post 893, you stated plain and simply in one sentence:

"Labor is a commodity."

With respect to the rest of your post, you feel that what is (i.e. hiring so - called "illegal aliens" is illegal) should carry weight, while calling me a socialist, primarily because I know what a lot of the statutes and case law says regarding welfare and the system's view about some perceived duty by government to keep people dependent on the government dole.

In other words, you like to have one set of measuring criteria and standards by which to judge yourself and another to judge me by.

You have all this education (SUPPOSEDLY) but you don't have enough common sense to avoid getting into pissing matches on the Internet with people you think are stupid. So, with your low opinion of me, what would it make you if you were starting arguments with idiots?

Nobody thinks you are stupid, everybody can see that you actually are stupid. Labor doesn't equate to laborer, so, yes, you are illiterate and have demonstrated you don't know jack shit about basic economics, let alone laws and statutes. LMFAO

 

[Humorme]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

Your own link makes your claims look like you really don't grasp the English Language. What's even funnier is you are on disability, receiving welfare yourself. watafuknmoron

As your link claims, "illegals" don't receive welfare and are on the bottom of the economic ladder, yet they survive by paying all their taxes as claimed by your link. So which is it? How can illegals make it and not citizens? Why do workers therefor need a "living wage"? Your link contradicts itself and you are trying to cherry pick what you want from it to match your narrative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

 

[Humorme]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

 

[beagle9]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

. Where do you come up with some of the crap you spout Ray ?? No one and I mean no one has ever figured they could live on minimum wage. Everyone knows that a company has a right to start you working at minimum wage, and then place you on the ladder system in which you begin to climb. Now in some cases people can't climb the ladder because something is wrong, but you never hear a person like that complain because they haven't got the sense to complain about something they know nothing about, and are just glad to have the job. Everyone else in their right mind looks to move forward, and above minimum wage in a company that is worked for. The debate here is to determine if the minimum wage has fallen behind in most states, and then should governments step in to raise it or not ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

. Where do you come up with some of the crap you spout Ray ?? No one and I mean no one has ever figured they could live on minimum wage. Everyone knows that a company has a right to start you working at minimum wage, and then place you on the ladder system in which you begin to climb. Now in some cases people can't climb the ladder because something is wrong, but you never hear a person like that complain because they haven't got the sense to complain about something they know nothing about, and are just glad to have the job. Everyone else in their right mind looks to move forward, and above minimum wage in a company that is worked for. The debate here is to determine if the minimum wage has fallen behind in most states, and then should governments step in to raise it or not ?

People that support government stepping in are talking about the minimum wage set high enough to "bring people out of poverty" and take them off of social programs. Others spout off about a "livable wage."

That's not what minimum wage is for and it's not supposed to "keep up" with the pace of other wages, inflation or cost of living. It's the lowest wage that an employer can pay.

In other words those who are complaining about how the MW fell behind are under some sort of delusion that MW in the past kept people off of social programs, out of poverty, and was a wage high enough to live on. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

MW people are about 3% of our workforce; most of them retirees, kids in school and people just looking to make extra money. The people who work minimum wage jobs that are trying to support themselves are a tiny fraction of that 3%, and there is no need to upset industry to cater to those few people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it.

False.

I stated the fact that labor is the commodity that workers sell.

If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

Synonyms are irrelevant. The definition of the word was supplied by Websters.

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

All men are free to trade to their advantage in a legal manner. If you wish to hire only black people, that is no one's business save your own. If you seek to hire illegal aliens, then you are violating the laws and engaged in a crime. I am not a Ricardian and I support the sovereignty of nations.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

Labor is a commodity that is sold by a worker.

Try again.

You are a liar. Post 893, you stated plain and simply in one sentence:

"Labor is a commodity."

With respect to the rest of your post, you feel that what is (i.e. hiring so - called "illegal aliens" is illegal) should carry weight, while calling me a socialist, primarily because I know what a lot of the statutes and case law says regarding welfare and the system's view about some perceived duty by government to keep people dependent on the government dole.

In other words, you like to have one set of measuring criteria and standards by which to judge yourself and another to judge me by.

You have all this education (SUPPOSEDLY) but you don't have enough common sense to avoid getting into pissing matches on the Internet with people you think are stupid. So, with your low opinion of me, what would it make you if you were starting arguments with idiots?

Your ignorance provides a canvas upon which I can and do illustrate the principles of liberty.

Simple as that.

 

[Humorme]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.