|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:54 am Post subject: Which 'conservative' governor is the most reactionary? |
 |
|
Don't you sometimes wonder what it is about the distant-past-that-never-happened that is so enticing and alluring to the current crop of conservatives? What is it about bowing and scraping to the boss that so appeals to these people? What is it about ignorant anti-science that seems so wave-of-the-future? What is it about the phrase 'small government' that leads them into your bedroom but out of your public life?
Which 'conservative' governor is the most reactionary? There is an embarrassment of riches, unfortunately.
Candidates:
1. Walker of Wisconsin
2. Kasich of Ohio
3. Snyder of Michigan
4. Scott of Florida
5. LePage of Maine
6. Brewer of Arizona
7. Barbour of Mississippi
There may well be others. Feel free to nominate your candidate.
Today (and my nominee could change with the news tomorrow) my nominee is LePage of Maine. I have a soft spot in my heart for child labor laws (what fool me) and Mr. LePage has seen fit to offer up a policy that would allow employers to hire high school students at $5.25 rather than $7.50 in order to exploit them. Since minimum wage earners haven't got enough problems, why not open the 'free market' to under-age workers in an effort to depress wages still further? Why should 16-year olds be in school�screw the future. Why not drag in some more illegal immigrants to further depress wages? With any luck, we can arrange a system where the workers pay the employer for the privilege to work.
If the object is to lower wages across the board, why not just say so? In my opinion, lawyers make too much money. Why not allow law students or para-legals to open up shop at cut rate prices and bring down the outrageous fees lawyers demand? If your neighbor lady is sitting around mornings drinking too much coffee and has nothing better to do than watch the soaps, why not let her teach your kids at a lower rate of pay than certified teachers? Etc.
But don't forget the tax cuts for the robber barons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know anything about all of those individuals, less Scott.
What shall he do? The deficit is 3.6b. I walked past a very distasteful protest yesterday. Teachers gave their students signs and wandered around by the roads chanting. These are middle/high school students. What in the hell do they know about budgets? These teachers are using students inappropriately. It didn't warm me towards their position.
Anyways, Florida is going to cut the education budget by 6%. In other words, the budget will be 94% of last year. Not the end of the world. The Broward and Dade school systems are terribly corrupt and wasteful. Broward built billions in schools that were unneeded, after lobbying from industry.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/14/2115051/commissioner-of-education-to-send.html
These aren't simple issues. More money does not necessarily mean better schools. It might mean better paid construction firms and a nice BMW for commissioners. Nor does cutting the budget mean that this stuff will go away. The students will see diminished choices.
What can Florida do? It has both a revenue and expense problem. The Florida economy relies heavily on the growth machine, forever expanding suburbs past UDB's. I really doubt that cities like Maimi with 30% residential vacancy have any demand for more sub/exurbs. Free trade ensures large manufacturing wont pull up the slack and the TBTF are sucking up all the capital. The policies that determine economic health are made in DC, by in large. The states have to live within their means.
That said, Scott is probably a criminal (medicare fraud). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I have a soft spot in my heart for child labor laws (what fool me) and Mr. LePage has seen fit to offer up a policy that would allow employers to hire high school students at $5.25 rather than $7.50 in order to exploit them. |
If high school students have a lower minimum wage:
(a) more high school students will be hired
(b) perhaps at the expense of non-high school students
A better policy would be to lower the minimum wage for everyone, but I think he's prevented from doing that by Federal minimum wage standards ($7.25/hour). Smart high school students will band together and demand to be paid $7.00/hour after a probationary period (I'd rather have a high schooler w/ 3 months experience for many jobs than a green high school graduate, anyway).
Huh.
| Quote: |
Current Federal Minimum Wage: $7.25 per hour (as of July 24, 2009) -- may vary under the following conditions:
* Younger Workers: If you are under 20 years of age, you may be paid as little as $4.25 per hour during your first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment. |
Oh, I see. It appears Ya-Ta has neglected to tell us the whole story. Those minimum wages would only apply for the first 180 days.
Maine GOP Legislators Looking To Loosen Child Labor Laws: Lower minimum wage to $5.25 1st 180 days (http://njuice.com/Maine-GOP-Legislators-Looking-To-Loosen-Child-Labor-Laws-Lower-minimum)
The problem here is that it will conflict with Federal law for the second 90 day period. Is LePage purposefully teeing up for a Federal court challenge? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
BTW, because I love this stuff, I'm going to get into the Constitutionality of Federal regulation of minimum wage. The precedent is United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
@wiki
@findlaw
The question was, can the Federal government regulate minimum wages through the Fair Labor Standards Act under the Commerce Clause (which permits Federal intervention into INTERSTATE commerce)?
The court declined to distinguish between manufacturing and shipment, stating that manufacture eventually impacts shipment. But it was really the poor and right-wing precedent of Hammer v. Dagenhart that set the majority off.
| Quote: |
The motive and purpose of the present regulation are plainly to make effective the Congressional conception of public policy that interstate commerce should not be made the instrument of competition in the distribution of goods produced under substandard labor conditions, which competition is injurious to the commerce and to the states from and to which the commerce flows.
...
In the more than a century which has elapsed since the decision of Gibbons v. Ogden, these principles of constitutional interpretation have been so long and repeatedly recognized by this Court as applicable to the Commerce Clause, that there would be little occasion for repeating them now were it not for the decision of this Court twenty-two years ago in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E, 724. In that case it was held by a bare majority of the Court over the powerful and now classic dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes setting forth the fundamental issues involved, [312 U.S. 100, 116] that Congress was without power to exclude the products of child labor from interstate commerce. The reasoning and conclusion of the Court's opinion there cannot be reconciled with the conclusion which we have reached, that the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause is plenary to exclude any article from interstate commerce subject only to the specific prohibitions of the Constitution.
...
The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
...
The Act is sufficiently definite to meet constitutional demands. One who employs persons, without conforming to the prescribed wage and hour conditions, to work on goods which he ships or expects to ship across state [312 U.S. 100, 126] lines, is warned that he may be subject to the criminal penalties of the Act. No more is required. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Those minimum wages would only apply for the first 180 days.
|
Bingo! Hire a high school junior and let him/her work 179 days and then send him begging in the streets while you hire another entry-level worker at the cheaper rate. An endless supply of entry level workers...and if we don't generate enough native born, bring in some from Mexico. The free market will solve all problems as long as we have an unending supply of low wage workers to drive down wages while the Supreme Court allows the CEOs to buy elections. Yeah, fair system.
Gotta wife who needs to go to work part-time to bolster the family income to pay for insurance, the kids' college? Let her bargain for a wage with high school kids who drag down the wage.
| Quote: |
| A better policy would be to lower the minimum wage for everyone |
Hmmm...pretty clear where your heart is. Have you stopped beating your servants yet?
And none of this even addresses women's issues. Hate workers, hate women...who else you guys going to go after next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A better policy would be to lower the minimum wage for everyone |
Hmmm...pretty clear where your heart is. Have you stopped beating your servants yet?
And none of this even addresses women's issues. Hate workers, hate women...who else you guys going to go after next? |
Yep! All or nothing, black or white. Who is it that doesn't do nuance very well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A better policy would be to lower the minimum wage for everyone |
Hmmm...pretty clear where your heart is. Have you stopped beating your servants yet?
And none of this even addresses women's issues. Hate workers, hate women...who else you guys going to go after next? |
Yep! All or nothing, black or white. Who is it that doesn't do nuance very well? |
You haven't been paying attention to the bills introduced in a dozen or so states since November, have you? But that's OK. The election was about jobs, jobs, jobs and the result has been an assault on the unions and attack abortions in state after state. Those will balance the budget alright.
Now we're going after child labor laws.
I'm always a step or three behind the right-wingers. Give me a clue. Who will you go after next? Repeal of civil rights laws? Nullification has already been brought back. One of your boys is urging the restriction of voting rights to property holders, a la 1786. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
That said, Scott is probably a criminal (medicare fraud). |
Not just any old medicare fraud, but to quote:
"It was and still is the biggest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history and ended with the hospital giant Columbia/HCA paying a record $1.7 billion in fines, penalties and damages".
And he ran the company!
Four months after the election, and I still can't believe Floriduh elected him.
What's that you say, you'd rather have a shyster like that as governor than a liberal democrat?? Ok , but that still does not explain him winning the Republican primary against Florida Attorney General and former US house Rep Bill McCollum, who I despise by the way, but at least I can't accuse him of fleecing the public. Shows what money and negative campaigning can get you in this country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A better policy would be to lower the minimum wage for everyone |
Hmmm...pretty clear where your heart is. Have you stopped beating your servants yet?
And none of this even addresses women's issues. Hate workers, hate women...who else you guys going to go after next? |
You're embarrassing yourself. Stick to the issues.
If LePage restricted the $5.25/hour minimum wage to the first 90 days for high schoolers, he'd be exceeding the Federal minimum guidelines by $1.00/hour, and by age, since most high schoolers are younger than 20. The only bone of contention here should be his proposal to allow the $5.25/hour to go for 180 days instead of 90 days. Maine is free to adopt any minimum wage laws that equal or exceed the Federal requirement (actually, it can adopt one lower, but it would just be moot, as the Federal law states that whichever wage base is higher applies).
| Ya-Ta wrote: |
| Hire a high school junior and let him/her work 179 days and then send him begging in the streets while you hire another entry-level worker at the cheaper rate. |
Or just keep the minimum wage at $7.50 for all ages, well above the minimum Federal guidelines, and have a high unemployment rate for high school juniors and seniors.
BTW, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on this board who worked in Maine while in High School (Dunkin' Donuts). High School jobs are not supposed to be glorious, they are supposed to teach you minimal standards and work habits for the workplace. I started at above the minimum wage. I left willingly after 9 months, and they begged me to stay.
| Ya-Ta wrote: |
In my opinion, lawyers make too much money. Why not allow law students or para-legals to open up shop at cut rate prices and bring down the outrageous fees lawyers demand? |
Hey, look at that, we agree on something! Lawyers cost too much money because every state bar association (except CA) demand that those who sit for the bar complete a three-year JD degree following undergraduate studies. Californians must complete only one-year of their JD degree.
I would whine about this more, but as you say, how popular would the services of law students be in the marketplace? This is another example of unnecessary government regulation. If the bar exam is necessary, why make law school necessary? Its government subsidy of law schools, is what it is. Did you know potential lawyers used to be able to apprentice until they passed the bar?
Last edited by Kuros on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
Four months after the election, and I still can't believe Floriduh elected him. |
I read the two SF papers every day (Herald and Sun Sentinal). There was little coverage of the fraud, and very seldom anything strong. The TV news didn't touch it, from what I saw. Most people (voters) get their info from the TV and not the papers (go democracy!). I assume the papers/tv were worried about libel? The Herald is flaming liberal on every issue (less empire and evil Fidel). The SS is more conservative so I'd assume the Herald would beat him over the head with it every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Sector7G wrote: |
Four months after the election, and I still can't believe Floriduh elected him. |
I read the two SF papers every day (Herald and Sun Sentinal). There was little coverage of the fraud, and very seldom anything strong. The TV news didn't touch it, from what I saw. Most people (voters) get their info from the TV and not the papers (go democracy!). I assume the papers/tv were worried about libel? The Herald is flaming liberal on every issue (less empire and evil Fidel). The SS is more conservative so I'd assume the Herald would beat him over the head with it every day. |
Well, in the area of Florida that those papers cover, voters went overwhelmingly for his opponent(Sink) anyway. Take a look:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-election-2010-florida,0,3980745.htmlpage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Very true. I imagine the coverage was even more sparse in the conservative areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't know about governors, but Justice Scalia is, for a public figure, impressively reactionary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm always a step or three behind the right-wingers. Give me a clue. Who will you go after next? |
My right wing nirvana would ban anyone who earns less than $100,000 per year from voting. I'd also criminalize the politics of entitlement to free lunches courtesy of the wealth of others by introducing a 75% wealth tax (to be spent on alleviating the abject poverty experienced by sub-Saharan Africa) on those who venerate the coercive ways of the state to provide the inept with remuneration disproportionate to their abilities.
There's nothing fairer than plutocracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
