Every time we raise the minimum wage, there is a new cheap labor.

Let's do something to move the economy...like approving the Keystone Pipeline. Can we remove anti-freedom regulations? Simplify the tax code? Get federal, state, and local government noses out of places they don't belong?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what you try to do at the bottom if the middle can't move forward too.

Mmmm yes, but the middle can be supported by the base as well. Simplifying the tax code I agree with; notably, count capital gains as income, eliminate most deductions, and raise minimum deductible -- the point at which you actually start paying any taxes at all (obviously have to balance that out with more on the high end).

As for removing governments noses from where they "don't belong"... forcing amalgamations of municipalities that ought to be amalgamated would help some of that (San fransisco metro / NYC / Toronto / Vancouver etc); and merging redundant departments at the state/provincial level into the federal govt would help. Also giving money to municipalities based on population with no strings attached at the provincial/state level would help a lot.


But none of that *really* would help the overall economic situation if the "land of opportunity" keeps trending towards the land of "you have no chance to survive, make your time!". (all your base are belong to us).


Unfortunately for the haves and elites in this system just go by the saying, "If they're broke, why fix it?"

forcing amalgamation of municipalities is no solution imo. Toronto is a perfect example of why not. At a municipal level things become unmanageable (This is similar to why large corps have middle management and generally don't try to merge a bunch of depts. into one under less management unless there are fewer workers/downsizing first). Not only that but the power structure makes it a non-starter. Also what would you merge Toronto with. None of the surrounding berbs (if you can call them that, as they are larger than many cities in Canada on their own) want to be merged in nor does Toronto want them. The local interests are too different.
Put this in perspective for you: () = pop rank in Canada
Toronto (1 - 2.6 million), Missisauga (6 - 700K), Brampton (9 - 500K), Hamilton (10 - 500K), Vaugan (17 - 300K), Markham (16 - 300K).
IT's very different from "Vancouver" Where Vancouver is smaller than montreal and Vancouver/Surrey are about the same size and all the other berbs are super puny.

yea, I vote no.

to everybody that "cant" make it on their own, by getting an education, working to pay for said education, and moving up in the world : fluff you!

call it insensitive, but it is what it is. there is NO reason that someone that is capable to work cannot get ahead in life, in the USA.

you guyes simply dont understand how business works. you are stuck in a eutopian world that bases every projection off of what would be the optimal outcome of your dream scenario. business owners do not just willingly give up profit margins because they are such great loving people who absolutely would do anything to help their employees. if that were the case nobody would be making minimum wage as it is.

that being said, the minimum wage jobs are for minimum wage work. low or no skilled work for entry level work experience. NOT for full time, supporting your life, jobs.

there is no excuse for a grown adult to be "stuck" working at mcdonalds with no option of other employment. that is a reflection of life choices that person made, paying them more for poor life decisions so they can afford their own studio apartment for a couple years until inflation catches up to them and makes them flat broke again is not the answer. That said, if they passed it now, Obamacare could actually be called the Affordable Care Act hahah

Except that in the states, since the 2008 crash, even professionals have a hard time getting jobs:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU04032217

And of the jobs that *are* created, most of them are part time;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...ew-normal/article4809832/
and that's even in Canada so don't go blaming Obamacare =/

Basically, there is less job *supply* than there is job *demand*; it doesn't matter *how hard* you work if supply is lower than demand, you still are going to have a tough time getting a job, and when you do it will pay less than in the past.


Free market people alllll believe in supply and demand until it comes to the labour supply, then it's all "work hard and you will be rewarded!"; I call bullfluff.


You can stimulate labour demand by stimulating demand in general, by injecting more money into the bottom 20-40% of the population who would spend every $ they earned, instead of letting it flow upwards to the people who don't need a 2nd/3rd car or pillow.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

qzjul, I call bullfluff on those who say we have a free market right now. The market is nowhere near free right now (in the US). Even believing in limited government intervention in the market still qualifying as a free market, it's not a free market right now. You can make markets move by freeing them. Free markets have made several nations great. The most successful regulations in history have come when the government has intervened to restore free markets (after some businesses have gained too much power). Now government regulations have shackled the markets to mediocrity.

Sure

I agree, there are multiple markets where the DOJ should be stepping in today. We have a very non-interventionist government resulting in a serious oligarchy problem.

" I dont like taking my hard earned money and giving it to anyone."
Never?
So you don't like buying *anything*? Buying food makes you unhappy?
ok then:P

" Free markets have made several nations great. The most successful regulations in history have come when the government has intervened to restore free markets (after some businesses have gained too much power). "
Angel1 arguing for a form Anarchism? Interesting. I can't say I disagree that government should intervene to counter monopoly power or undue influence over the political system. Mind you liberatarianism and anarchism (the political movement, not the violent mob of "anarchists" that vandalize stuff) have overlapping ideals.

Doesn't it seem as though the loudest voices among those asking for higher minimum wages also carry an air of socialist/communist ideology? I tend to hear a lot of folks suggesting that they ought not have to work more/harder for what they want in life, but rather that it simply ought to be TAKEN from someone else (at the end of a gun or or by the stroke of a pen) and redistributed to them; the whole attitude smacks of socialism. I would caution those people to consider that while our capitalist system is far from perfect, experiments in socialism and communism led directly to the deaths of tens of millions of people. Those people trusted their leaders and those leaders took them straight to their graves, promising every step of the way that there would be a FAIR and comfortable life at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

Now before some loud mouth gets all up in arms and feigns offense at being called a socialist or a communist - I didn't call anyone anything. I'm merely offering a nugget of food for thought for anyone who IS traveling down that idealistic road in their own thoughts.

Another thought on minimum wage - how on earth did we, the world's beacon of freedom, come to a place where there are so many laws regulating so many things that the federal government requires an agency of 90,000 people to manage the implementation/enforcement of JUST ONE area of law......do only I see this as a problem? Personally, I don't need a government agency to save me from my evil boss - I'm not a chained slave. If my boss doesn't want to pay me what I'm worth, I will work somewhere else. Even now when the economy is rough and unemployment is rather high, jobs are (allegedly) rather scarce, I have managed to turn down two decent jobs this year in favor of keeping the one that I have. And I'm merely a high school grad =)
All over America there truly is work for those who want it, opportunity for those who will embrace it and, yes, there is poverty and despair for those who simply will not rise above it. I have no doubt that you, yes YOU, reader, can personally introduce me to someone who's story is so sad and circumstance so unfair that I would quickly be reaching for my wallet to see what I can do to help them.......but, I assure you that for every one of those unfortunate cases, I can personally introduce you to ten people (including my own brother) who are professional welfare recipients, enjoying a life of smoking doobies and playing video games while I am at work every day. No one likes it but this is simply the reality of things and while I'm first in line to help the struggling widow or the disabled vet, I'll never sign on to MASSIVE economic adjustments or entitlement programs in the name of helping the 'lower class' (of which I am a member) because I KNOW that those ten lazy assholes I described will NEVER use the 'help' that the government forcibly takes from my wallet to rise above their circumstance and become self sufficient. My heart bleeds for the one who will but damn the ten who won't.......

Food just pisses me off dont get me started. I live in California ffs. Gawd damn fluffing hippies here fluff everything to hell.
Lol

:P

meh agriculture globally is anything but free market lol.
The US is bad, but they aren't alone in this.
This is one case where I'm pretty sure that universal removal of farm subsidies would improve things globally for almost everyone.

except for those making minimum wage, right?






Also- QZ, how would raising minimum wage boost job supply? mandating that employers pay employees up to double what they make now, while you claim they wouldn't increase cost of goods to offset that (yea, right) they wouldnt have money to hire more people.

As far as professionals being out of work. The ones that were good at what they did, landed on their feet. Cant find work? BULLfluff. I could walk through my town tomorrow and get 3 or 4 job offers in fields I do not have experience in that will pay above minimum wage. Sure, they may not be banking the 50-60k they were before, but that doesn't mean they cant find work, they just cant find work that will over-pay them like they were before they had to scale back.


To be honest, I dont think we lost enough jobs the first go round. So much so that people have a false sense that it wasn't as bad as it really was. This economic downturn is not over, The banks are setting themselves up to do this all over again, but next time, nobody will be there to bail them out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Also, are you telling me that Obama is telling a lie when he touts the economy recovered and spits out unemployment, and the stock market rebounding.... I mean Obama says we are through it, are you saying he isn't telling the truth?

"except for those making minimum wage, right?"
I was talking in the context of global food prices and trade, not wages :P

", The banks are setting themselves up to do this all over again,"
The financial regulatory system is set up to do this over and over again. It has before and will do so again. As long as risk is understated/measured incorrectly AND people are allowed to do transactions on margin (in some form) without sufficient capital both in terms of dollars and liquidity then we go through this cycle of unfluffiness over and over.
The problem imo is not lack of rule structure, it's trying to govern on rules rather than principals. But meh, affecting global change with this is a never ending struggle.

I agree 100% on your point to stop subsidizing food.

we should also stop subsidizing housing, we should stop subsidizing urban development we should stop subsidizing banks. and we should stop subsidizing corporations that run a fluffty business model and go bottom up.

If you run a fluffty business and you get burnt doing it, sorry. Try better next time.

There are plenty of venture capital firms out there they seek out good business models and buy them out and turn them around if they are worthy.

Martian, the number of US agencies that have police forces and military-esque SWAT teams is growing outrageously. The Department of Education has one such organization at its beck and call. The idea that the US should have a Department of Education is questionable at best and the idea that they should have hired guns at their disposal is flat wrong. I certainly believe in abolishing these parts of the government. If the Department of Education finds something that justifies the deployment of armed agents, they should have to go through Department of Justice to do it. Any US agency that does not have any business being armed should be disarmed.

Any regulations that unnecessarily restrict the economy have no business existing. In many ways, the next Civil Rights movement may well need to be one for the Freedom of Trade (by exchange of goods, exchange of labor through unions, exchange of labor without unions, etc.). The right of people to determine their own economic future without the unnecessary interference of government is going to have to be fought for. Does this mean I want a smaller government at all levels? Yes. Completely abolish government? No. The idea of government minding its own business that comes out of anarchism is a strong and good idea.

I have to disagree with angel1 on education departments , however the whole premise of these departments has changed so that they can at best be considered baby sitting departments . any education the children receive is incidental and in some cases accidental . more realistically they could be seen as training camps to either fit the students into 2 basic categories , bullies who will become criminals and victims . the victims are those that attempt to fit into the slots in the machine our society is and make as few waves as possible and never make trouble for the system , the bullies either become criminals or cops , although with some of the cops its hard to tell the difference .

Good lord... will you people who know nothing about our educational system stop commenting on it? Some of us work in that industry and actually know real information.

Angel1 - please cite the "army" you claim exists under the US Dept. of Education. Provide a link to information. Also, please provide any example of when the U.S. Dept of Education has sent in its own "armed agents" without going through any other agency.

arthog - please define "these departments". Your response makes no sense. Are you talking about the U.S. Dept of Education (which hardly does anything in our country -- 8% of educational spending here), State Departments of Education (which vary wildly from state to state) or local school districts (which vary even more wildly and are "locally controlled" / elected)?

Arthog, given that the US Federal Government is meant to have little to nothing to do with education in the US, it makes little sense at all to have a cabinet level education agency in the federal government. Individual state departments of education are of course needed...because it's actually their job to regulate public schools within their states.

Atryn: http://en.wikipedia.org/...s#Department_of_Education

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...a-the-war-a_b_875967.html

I did not say that the Department of Education has an army. However, they do have an armed police force and given that they are suppose to be over "education", there is simply no need for them to have anyone armed with the exception of building security. Any actual police work should be handled by agencies created for that purpose.

Local school districts don't create police forces if they want school resource officers in their schools, they hire their local police departments to supply the officers. If the DoE needs police work done, then they should go through the Department of Justice.

LMAO

so you cite a blog post & a wikipedia entry (excellent sources!) that shows they are on a list of agencies (who use the same "inspector general" "force" as most other non-enforcement agencies :p) and that proves the department of education has a crazy armed police force? If you dig deeper on that issue (from 2011 -- and it's the ONLY instance I can find) you'll see that they employed the REGULAR SWAT team. They, like you said you wanted them to, brought in actual police force to handle the issue once the inspector general -- not the Dep of Education -- issued the warrant. So that is pretty much what you desired based on your post. Seems like your feds know how to give you what you want, even if you don't know it. :)

This is why I stopped paying attention to this thread -- the level of discourse is just so low. It's low even for AT.

Are we still talking about how we should spend other peoples money? Fascism is the name of the game. Don't want to give it? We will take it.

Pang, the point is that the Federal Government's overreaches are growing and the people a getting tired of the BS. The government needs to get out of people's lives. They need to stop regulating every aspect of our lives and just let us live. Liberate the markets from the government and liberate the people too. Guess what, left the their own devices can take care of themselves. The federal government should have next to no direct interaction with the average American on a day to day basis. State governments need to have a little more day to day direct interactions with the people and local governments still more.

Unfortunately, all levels of government have taken a stranglehold on the economy and are squeezing the life and opportunity right out of everyone. These huge governments aren't needed. Washington says that it's so hard to balance the budget, but it'd be easier if they'd shed all the things they don't need to be in. State and local governments need to make it as easy as filing for a business license to open most businesses.

Did you read past your own links? Your first link is useless and has nothing at all about the Dept of Ed as the OIG link is a dead link there. Your second link is more general about OIG's in general. If you follow it through to the article about the Dept of Ed OIG (WaPo I think) you get to this link:

http://www.ignet.gov/...ndards/agleguidelines.pdf

This is a copy of the documentation for all of the federal agency OIG's that you are complaining about. Most important to note:

1. This is per a 1978 statute. Nothing new here.
2. Each OIG must be granted statutory law enforcement authority by the Department of Justice "deputizing" agents to have that authority.

So, you recommend that if the Dept of Ed has a problem, they should take it to the DoJ to enforce. What actually happens is that the DoJ has deputized people inside the Dept of Ed to streamline the process.

OMG, cry me a river.

I have "next to no direct interaction" with the Federal government on a day to day basis. WTH are you up to? (Do I want to know?)

By average American, let me include businesses in that as they have a lot of average Americans coming into contact with the federal government on a day-to-day basis.

Wow so Angel1 just completely ignored the fact his previous post was owned and went on a different (more general) rant instead to try and recover. Like not even trying to hide the fact what he posts is utter garbage and shouldn't be listened to; just "oh ya... well the gov is overreaching!" :p

I'm not sure that giving a blanket deputation to Offices of Inspector General really qualifies as Department of Justice oversight of law enforcing by IGs. It certainly doesn't mean that the Department of Justice has officers in place so that the Offices of Inspector General can act when needed. In fact what this really means is the the IGs don't answer to the DoJ on law enforcement matters unless they really screw up. Those deputized IG officers work for their respective IG. They should have to go to the DoJ (or another qualifying policy authority [NCIS on Naval Bases, etc.]) to get officers to go with them to enforce laws if an IG office feels that it is needed.

Citation: https://www.ignet.gov/...ndards/agleguidelines.pdf

Goodness Angel1... READ THE DOCUMENT. THE WHOLE DOCUMENT...

Virtually everything requires, training, oversight, reporting and re-certifications back to the FBI, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the Attorney General's Office / DOJ.

They cannot even engage in surveillance or undercover work. That has to go through the FBI.

Just about the "craziest" thing here is that federal officers under the OIG's are allowed to carry a weapon (provided they have gone through the FLETC training and get quarterly re-certifications).

Given your crazy paranoia, I'd say that is a must as it appears that even a Dept of Education employee approaching your door would expect their personal safety to be in threat.

The bottom line from my perspective is that the government needs to get out of the nanny business entirely.

The FDA is failing us and the evidence of it is there for everyone to see on a daily basis on TV from ads by law firms to "represent" you if you took this drug, or that drug that was only released a little while ago. Where was the government oversight then?

The problem is the "inspectors" that the government uses for this stuff are all tightly tucked in with the businesses that they are paid to inspect. They don't care as long as they get a paycheck, just like everyone else.

What about all those government agencies with overlapping responsibilities and authorities that we pay all those people to operate without any oversight at all?

Where was the CIA and the NSA while Obama was filling his administration with Hamas supporters, and Muslim Brotherhood supporters? Was the monkey asleep at the switch?

How is it that our government with all it's highly capable spies and spy tech, could not identify people who were planning to attack Americans? They know what we're having for fluffing dinner for Chrissakes and who is on the guest list of the average American, but they can't figure out that someone who has moved here, collected welfare and food stamps was planning to blow up fluff at the Boston Marathon?

I know that there is a certain "suspension of disbelief" that you need to have to enjoy good science fiction, but this is way beyond the pale.

What we need to do is elect people who can really lead, not just blow smoke up our collective asses, lie on the Sunday News shows, have it plastered all over the front page newspapers on Monday, and get re-elected on Tuesday.

America needs to put down the TV remote, evacuate the malls and start to GIVE A fluff AGAIN!

I haven't had TV service in at least 6 years. I only go to a mall when absolutely necessary. Are you projecting?

Citing the FDA as "too much gov't" when your complaint is that they aren't catching/intervening enough is laughable.

IMHO, the entire discussion about international espionage and anti-terrorism is separate from the conversation about how the federal gov't conducts domestic regulation, oversight and taxation. Oh, and very very far from the minimum wage discussion. ;)

Goodness Atryn, read the document...the whole document. For a few operations they have to inform the FBI and if using court order surveillance must have the cooperation of the FBI or another specified department. They have undergo firearms and law training, which I suppose we should be grateful for...but they are still not a law enforcement agency subject to the additional scrutiny by elected officials and the people that the FBI, etc. are. At the point that the Department of Education needs to exercise a search warrant, it should be involving a law enforcement agency anyway.

Atryn, it's apparent to me that you didn't actually read and comprehend anything in my post.

The problem is NOT the existence of the agency per se, it's the lack of oversight, and the ineptitude with which it operates. If they can't see through the huge amount of mandated trials for these new drugs that there will be a problem a couple of years down the road, they ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS! Thus, why should the American People have to foot the bill for them?

http://online.wsj.com/...um+wage&mg=reno64-wsj

Sigh... no, you just believe in throwing it all out and going with nothing whereas I believe in fixing the problem(s).

And they are... *sigh*...

I also mentioned that same point to him like 20 messages ago (re: dept of education "having their own SWAT team")

No, it's involving the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Education. They get their training and then they are allowed to act independently on most issues. Now, if you're calling the Department of Education a law enforcement agency, then that's fine. My counter point would be that the DoE has no business being a law enforcement agency. Forget that, they don't have a reason to exist at all. Education is NOT the federal government's job.

Just searched my handy dandy constitution, no where did I see education as a power explicitly delegated from the States to the Federal gov't... that's odd...

nor does it give power to the federal govt to tax wages. in fact they have tried to argue that in the high court multiple times, and have lost every time.

The federal income tax in the USA is 100% optional for the taxpayers to pay.

Nor is it executed as a power. Again, if any of you knew anything about this it would be a worthwhile discussion.

Like many "federal powers", it is purely the "power" of the purse, not constitutional power that draws state compliance. For example, some states have chosen to forego federal highway transportation dollars so that they don't have to comply with DoT regulations -- and that is perfectly legal!!!

Likewise, virtually everything the U.S. Dept of Education does is "incentive" based. Do you want $100M in Race to the Top $$ - here are the criteria! Don't want it - then the criteria don't matter for you!

If Congress passes a law (which they have the constitutional right to do) the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing said law. The "Department of Justice" is not something described in the Constitution. Enforcement of the Laws is the role of the Executive Branch. The Office of the Inspector General (in any federal agency, not just Education) is a Law Enforcement Agency with authorization by the Department of Justice, oversight by the FBI/AG/DoJ and direct budgetary reporting to the Dept in which it is housed and with whom it cooperates on fraud investigations.

BTW, do you know why they investigate "fraud" so much? Because if you are violating a "rule" of a federal agency like the Dept of Education, you often aren't breaking "the law". As I mentioned, these are incentive based programs. What you are doing is committing "fraud" -- i.e. taking the money and lying about compliance. Fraud against the Federal government is a federal offense.

Your argument about whether or not a federal department should have an OIG isn't a constitutional argument, its just an argument about how the Executive Branch is choosing to organize itself and how to carry out its Executive responsibility to enforce laws (in most cases, fraud).

Your argument about whether there should *be* a Department of Education is more about whether the federal government should have the "right" or "option" to enact incentive-based programs that are opt-in for the states.

No constitutional law is being broken here. The "power" is still with the states. Seriously, if you think differently, take them to court and find out.

If you REALLY want to debate federal vs. state power, you should be choosing to debate the commerce clause - it is from the interpretation of this clause that MOST federal "power" derives.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ion_8:_Powers_of_Congress

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

It is that clause (regulate commerce among the several States) that has been interpreted in an expanding sense over the decades. In theory, if you operate a business entirely within a state with no use of anything from any other state, you wouldn't be subject to federal laws or taxation. But if you ARE using ANYTHING which is inter-state commerce, then you are deemed to be engaged in inter-state commerce as well. For example -- do you use power off the inter-state regulated power grid? Are you connecting to the inter-state regulated telecom network(s)? Are you using any materials in your product(s) which are not locally grown/made?

In essence, today, it is taken as a "given" that EVERY business in EVERY industry is engaged in interstate commerce in SOME way, and thus the federal government can regulate it.

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Yes, they have the power to enact taxes. The types of taxes they can enact are not spelled out. By the way, you can interpret "the general Welfare of the United States" pretty broadly.

That is, btw, the FIRST power enumerated to Congress in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Enumerated Powers.

I don't know very much about the US education system and the federal dept of education.
Mind you I live in one of the few countries in the world where the federal government has practically no say (over education below the college level) and doesn't get involved with it. It's practically a non-issue in national politics.

The money thing is funny. Our federal government uses that to enforce the healthcare act (which is really a provincial responsibility). On the other hand Provinces have been known to disrupt/effectively bring to a halt federal projects through other legal means too.

They even ruled that if you grow your own crop, on your own land, for your own consumption, that is interstate commerce. Even if you sell literally none of it.

If this is what the text was supposed to mean, they would have just given the government the power to regulate everything. Instead, they provided limits which have since been quashed.

It's funny
In the US, an SCOTUS ruling says that insurance is "interstate commerce" but there is an act of congress which gets around that for certain regulatory purposes.
In Canada, the supreme court said that insurance is not "interstate commerce" and thus *cannot* be regulated federally beyond the powers that the federal government has via the constitution (ie solvency of financial institutions if you are federally incorporated, and taxation). In practice most provinces don't really want to deal with the solvency issue themselves and simply copy most of what the federal regulator does (to save time and money).

It's a real wtf moment for me as two systems based on british common law have defined "interstate commerce" completely differently in this case.

seems like a bunch of people in this thread need their tinfoil hats replaced or tuned up

15/hr will have unintended consequences.

Lets start with the jobs that most High School Kids try to get. That means that there will have to be a Training wage or something.

Jobs that include tips ... in many southern states the tips are imputed income which are counted as part of the minimum wage for tipped employees. [example a tipped employee's gross sales/hr averages $100 * 8% is considered to be the tipping rate so $8/hr tips are included part of the /hr wage ]

It makes the cost of all goods go up and people who work above minimum tend to demand more because they feel they are more skilled that the minimum.

I tends to reduce the number of hrs employees work as well because they're too expensive. It sends jobs to where the wages are lower.



How about the localities just get to keep the money made there by the population rather than send it to the "National Government to send back"

"The government the governs best governs least"



If you want more job supply then find a need and fill it ... aka start your own business. That's what used to happen more often. The less regulations that exist to start up business the better off the job supply is. Minimum wage is just one of the impediments.

Finally, someone who has actually checked the constitution on the matter. THANK YOU!

Or in your case, Trife, removed along with the ear plugs, blinders and feeding tube.