"In what has become a running joke amongst those skeptical of the claim that minimum wage increases have no effect on unemployment, a recent report by the Employment Policies Institute showed that 174 of the 184 co-sponsors of a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour hired unpaid interns."
"In a review of over 100 studies, economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that,A sizable majority of the studies surveyed ... give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries." http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf
"Yes, minimum wages still do increase unemployment."
https://mises.org/blog/seattles-minimum-wage-supporters-ignore-facts
(Score: 5, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:48AM (14 children)
Benjamin Franklin has never been credited with this phrase in any historical context, although Alexis de Tocqueville has been with something very similar.
Corruption... you keep saying that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Giving the populace what it demands [gallup.com] is not "corruption", but democracy at work. Doing otherwise on the other hand is not only signs that the system isn't WaD, but clear evidence that the system is designed to work AGAINST the people. And, don't give me any canned "but muh tyranny of the majority", that only applies when the majority is demanding something tyrannical.
A state which does not obey the will of it's people, regardless of how destructive, is a state deserving only of doom. All people deserve the right to self-determination, including when this right causes them to destroy what they have.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:07AM (1 child)
"Giving the populace what it demands [gallup.com] is not "corruption", but democracy at work."
So if the population "demands" that you give it all your money... or let's up that a bit... if the population "demands" that you are worthless and should be killed that is "democracy at work"?
(Score: 2, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:15AM
Come on dude, at least troll me with something that wasn't preemptively rebutted in the very next sentence. This is just embarrassing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 30 2017, @12:14PM (6 children)
You don't think "take their shit and give it to me!" is tyrannical? Interesting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @01:44PM (2 children)
Running a business is not compulsive. "They" are welcome to move to another country, the free market will quickly fill the void as you libertarians love to point out.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)
You won't trust the market to employ people, but you will trust it to fill a void when you've ruthlessly stamped out the last employer who tried to fill that void? And you think that the market is somehow "free" in that situation?
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday July 31 2017, @06:31AM
Note that I'm not saying that these businesses are going to be forced to fail, I'm merely saying that they can move if they don't agree with the whole "not practicing abusive employment terms" thing.
And "ruthlessly stamped out"? Universal employment terms apply to everyone, and there will still be the need for those services. If some businesses decide to pull out, others can move in and eat their bread so to speak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @02:24PM
The mighty buzzkill is st it again! Won't someone save us from his "wisdom"??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:59PM
It's not their money though, it's money that they acquired by stealing the proceeds of people's work. Nobody has ever become a billionaire through solely their own hard work. They became billionaires by appropriating the production of other people and making it their own.
In many cases, like with Bezos, the money doesn't even exist anywhere. It's money that he couldn't access even if he wanted to because selling all those shares of Amazon would result in the price dropping precipitously. He's probably worth only a small fraction of what people think he's worth for that very reason.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday July 31 2017, @04:52AM
I believe the saying is "democracy is tyranny by the masses".
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:02PM (3 children)
Democracy is corruption. Period, the end. The Founders carefully designed a carefully game balanced Republican form of government designed to resist the encroachments of the "universal franchise democracy" they could see destroying France and see numerous examples of similar ends in their history books.
Democracy MUST decay into Socialism because it is the winning move, short term, for everyone on the left side of the Bell Curve. And since a lack of long range planning pretty much defines the left side of the Bell Curve..... see the problem?
We were supposed to have enough popular representation to ensure the consent of the governed, thus preventing revolutions, but the idea of The People simply deciding important policy issues was an idea that almost universally terrified the people who designed our form of government.
A good guide for when the government is doing something it shouldn't, like passing minimum wage laws, etc. is to remember where our theory of government asserts that the State derives its power. It has no powers other than what we delegate unto it. It has the power to tax for lawful purposes because we consented to it, it has the power to wage war because we could delegate our Right to self defense to it. It has no authority to mandate a minimum wage because WE don't have that power to delegate. It doesn't have the power to redistribute wealth because we do not have that power to delegate to it. I DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE YOUR STUFF AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE MY STUFF AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. THE POOR DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HELP THEMSELVES TO OUR STUFF. Therefore none of us has that power to delegate to the State to do on our behalf. If you do not like this, propose an entirely new theory of government, write out a new specific form to implement that theory and get enough States to ratify your new Constitution... or win a Revolution.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:48PM
Democracy is a governmental model.
Socialism is an ownership model.
The opposite of Democracy is Authoritarianism.
The opposite of Socialism is Capitalism.
In a Capitalist workplace:
- Someone besides The Workers dictates what will be produced
- Someone besides The Workers dictates how that will be produced
- Someone besides The Workers dictates where that will be produced
- Someone besides The Workers dictates how the profits will be used
In a Socialist workplace:
- You and your co-workers democratically decide what will be produced
- You and your co-workers democratically decide how that will be produced
- You and your co-workers democratically decide where that will be produced
- You and your co-workers democratically decide how the profits will be used
Socialism is Democracy extended to the workplace.
Nitwit.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @12:45AM
Sorry that your country sucks so badly.
(There are better countries.)
The Founders carefully designed a carefully[-gamed,] balanced Republican form of government
True.
They also specified in that document how that document could be amended.
So far, one chance was squandered, outlawing drinkable alcohol.
Another amendment was squandered repealing that idiocy.
Now, imagine that that energy had instead gone into an amendment producing publicly-funded election campaigns--replacing the overt bribery of politicians.
.
...and there is a country that has a democracy that actually works the way a democracy is supposed to work.
Switzerland [wikipedia.org]
(BTW, that's the same country that has lots of guns but a tiny number of deaths due to gunfire.)
...but the U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A. WE'RE NUMBER 1 types won't ever recognize that their country can learn from another.
...and they won't get off their asses and demand improvement; they'll stay glued to Lamestream Media, getting the "information" that The Oligarchs want them to hear.
They won't organize and gather at the local office of their Congresscritter, demanding change nor will they attend townhalls where their Congresscritter can be publicly held to account.
Says very successful activist Ralph Nader: [csrl.org]
You get the government that you deserve.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday July 31 2017, @04:28AM
Let me suggest that you look up the definition of democracy.
Hint: it's not so restrictive that the USA cannot be defined as a democracy.
(Score: 1) by phantomlord on Monday July 31 2017, @02:19AM
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor [archives.gov]