Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Simple matter of definition: if it's not referring to public institutions or people, it's not an unfunded mandate. Arguing that it is would be just like arguing that increasing taxes is an unfunded mandate because the increased tax cost isn't provided by the government but paid by private citizens.
    No, Sam - not even close. A tax increase does NOT force citizens to spend money in a specific government mandated manner, giving funds to other individuals.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      No, Sam - not even close. A tax increase does NOT force citizens to spend money in a specific government mandated manner, giving funds to other individuals.
      A mandate need not be directed at specific allocation of funds (e.g., Clean Air Act).

      You are in a nosedive with the 'unfunded mandate' rationale for implying that a mandated wage increase is unfair. You are simply using the term incorrectly, even by your chosen definition. And you've argued that state relief to the poor isn't necessarily immoral or unfair, even though that relief has to be paid through some redistributive means.

      So imagine that the government, instead of mandating a higher wage to your employee, mandated a higher tax from you and then simply gave your employees a supplemental credit paid from your higher tax burden. Is that an "unfunded mandate"?
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Interesting -- though it's not the NYTimes, and it's arguing AGAINST the complaint that unfunded mandates are the biggest problems states face, National Review lists minimum wage increases as ONE of the TWO unfunded mandates that are the exception....

        Source: NationalReview

        Unfunded mandates, however, didn’t cause the current state budget messes. Only two significant mandates have been enacted since the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office. They are the 1996 minimum-wage increase, and the 1998 limit on federal reimbursements for state food-stamp administrative costs. (The funding status of a third mandate, the 2001 port-security bill, is still undetermined.)

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...es-brian-riedl

        © Copyright Original Source



        What it boils down to, Sam, is that those of us who actually sign the FRONTS of paychecks will argue this as "unfunded mandates", while those who only sign the BACKS of paychecks (or government assistance checks) will argue that they are NOT.
        That's talking about the state budgets — public funds. A minimum wage increase for public sector workers, if not funded, would be an unfunded mandate, as I previously said.

        What this boils down to is that you're simply using the term wrong. Plain wrong.

        ETA: Think about it this way — if funds were allocated for these public actions, they would not be "unfunded mandates." How would these actions be funded? Through revenue derived from the private sector. If paying for a mandate from revenue derived from the private sector constitutes an "unfunded mandate" then literally everything would be an unfunded mandate. The term would be, quite literally, meaningless.
        Last edited by Sam; 03-22-2015, 07:46 PM.
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          A mandate need not be directed at specific allocation of funds (e.g., Clean Air Act).

          You are in a nosedive with the 'unfunded mandate' rationale for implying that a mandated wage increase is unfair. You are simply using the term incorrectly, even by your chosen definition. And you've argued that state relief to the poor isn't necessarily immoral or unfair, even though that relief has to be paid through some redistributive means.

          So imagine that the government, instead of mandating a higher wage to your employee, mandated a higher tax from you and then simply gave your employees a supplemental credit paid from your higher tax burden. Is that an "unfunded mandate"?
          I completely understand why you would not see it as unfunded mandate, Sam, as you have never signed the front of a paycheck.

          Play games all you will -- the effect is the same.

          I enter into a contract to pay a specific amount agreeable to my employee, and a third party steps in and breaks my contract, forcing me to spend more of MY money.

          You're obviously quite alright with that.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            Context, little one. The 'case' in that post referred to the reason why conservatives oppose the redistribution understanding of Jubilee.
            You can tell how badly papster is losing by seeing how snarky he gets. The more snarky, the worse he is losing because he is incapable of admitting to being wrong.

            Bless your little confused heart
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I completely understand why you would not see it as unfunded mandate, Sam, as you have never signed the front of a paycheck.

              Play games all you will -- the effect is the same.

              I enter into a contract to pay a specific amount agreeable to my employee, and a third party steps in and breaks my contract, forcing me to spend more of MY money.

              You're obviously quite alright with that.
              Should I not be? Is it immoral?
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Should I not be? Is it immoral?
                You need to figure that out for yourself.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                  So, you think a philanthropic loan (one that was only given to other Israelites by the way) is wealth redistribution? You think this was so scary that it was being avoided huh?

                  Again, considering that we have no evidence that Jubilee was even observed, what does this have to do with anything? I think maybe we should all chip in to "redistribute" a few history books to you and Sam.
                  Papster isn't capable of admitting to error because even if you assume that a Jubilee was ever observed; what reason does one have to assume Jubilee laws would not be taken into account when you do something?
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Should I not be? Is it immoral?
                    Depends, is it immoral to take things (that are not yours) and give them to somebody else?
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      You need to figure that out for yourself.
                      Supposedly, you have an opinion on whether or not such an action is immoral, given that you asked whether it was fair. You're not going all moral relativist, I'm certain, so I expect that you do believe that it is either moral or immoral.
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Supposedly, you have an opinion on whether or not such an action is immoral, given that you asked whether it was fair. You're not going all moral relativist, I'm certain, so I expect that you do believe that it is either moral or immoral.
                        OK.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I completely understand why you would not see it as unfunded mandate, Sam, as you have never signed the front of a paycheck.

                          Play games all you will -- the effect is the same.

                          I enter into a contract to pay a specific amount agreeable to my employee, and a third party steps in and breaks my contract, forcing me to spend more of MY money.

                          You're obviously quite alright with that.
                          I've never signed one myself, but even I understand how bad doubling the min wage is. Besides, even if you only made 10,000 dollars a year, you're still fall in at 16.01% of the world's population by income, being richer than you with the rest being poorer. If you assume a full time* min wage, you're at 7.80%, in terms of the wealthiest in the world. At 15 dollars an hour, full time work*, you're at 1.10%, in terms of the world's richest. Interesting how they don't want to redistribute their wealth to the other 80% of the world, that lives on far less than they do, while calling those richer than them greedy (while ignoring their own greed).

                          * Full time considered a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks out of the year.
                          Source: http://www.globalrichlist.com/
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            I've never signed one myself, but even I understand how bad doubling the min wage is. Besides, even if you only made 10,000 dollars a year, you're still fall in at 16.01% of the world's population by income, being richer than you with the rest being poorer. If you assume a full time* min wage, you're at 7.80%, in terms of the wealthiest in the world. At 15 dollars an hour, full time work*, you're at 1.10%, in terms of the world's richest. Interesting how they don't want to redistribute their wealth to the other 80% of the world, that lives on far less than they do, while calling those richer than them greedy (while ignoring their own greed).

                            * Full time considered a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks out of the year.
                            Source: http://www.globalrichlist.com/
                            You need to factor in cost of living and what we collectively consider a minimum baseline of living in American society.
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              OK.
                              See, that's my problem: you tried to chide me for misrepresenting your position and refused to detail what your position is. So when you write things that are pretty clearly congruent with how I've represented your position and I push for clarification, it's not really OK to throw out a specious argument and then fade back.

                              You indicated that a third party mandating a higher wage for your employee would be unfair, which has to be understood in an ethical or moral framework. But you're not willing to claim that it would be immoral. That either means that 1) you really think it would be immoral but can't connect that with your support of taxation and relief to the poor or 2) you're not using "fair" in the framework of ethics or morals and are using it in a framework like a baseball game, where one team's superiority makes the match unfair but not unethical.

                              If (2), one has to ask why we should care that it's unfair — that's life!

                              If (1), there shouldn't be any reason why you can't call the action of mandating a higher wage is immoral, even though it complicates your previous position from a logical perspective.
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                See, that's my problem: you tried to chide me for misrepresenting your position and refused to detail what your position is. So when you write things that are pretty clearly congruent with how I've represented your position and I push for clarification, it's not really OK to throw out a specious argument and then fade back.
                                OK

                                You indicated that a third party mandating a higher wage for your employee would be unfair, which has to be understood in an ethical or moral framework.
                                Only to the anal retentive pedantic who has to analyze everything in that regard. Somehow, I've managed to get to be 60+ years old, and make good choices, and have a nice life without overanalyzing everything as "moral" or "immoral".

                                But you're not willing to claim that it would be immoral.
                                I'll give that a mull.

                                That either means that 1) you really think it would be immoral but can't connect that with your support of taxation and relief to the poor or 2) you're not using "fair" in the framework of ethics or morals and are using it in a framework like a baseball game, where one team's superiority makes the match unfair but not unethical.
                                OR, it could mean that I'm not so anal retentive and pedantic that I have to put neat little labels on everything!

                                If (2), one has to ask why we should care that it's unfair — that's life!

                                If (1), there shouldn't be any reason why you can't call the action of mandating a higher wage is immoral, even though it complicates your previous position from a logical perspective.
                                OK
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                293 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X