acemona

Women have always had control of their reproductive organs. Lol Sex is a choice.

You can LOL all you want on this one, but history does not bear out your opinion. Sex and reproduction have been a weapon used by men throughout history. Even now in our country:

A man rapes a women, which is humiliating and damaging in and of itself, but we have folks, mostly men who will then not give the women control of what happens to her next. It is about control.

Some liberals I know feel that improved birth control education will lessen poverty. Their view is that most unplanned pregnancies occur by poor out of wedlock young people who cannot afford kids in the first place. If these poor did not have unplanned kids they would have a better chance at pulling themselves out of poverty. They also point out the fact that if the poor have fewer kids, there will be fewer poor since poverty tends to follow generations. Sort of eugenics I guess.

 

My view is, there are many people in this country, I don't care how much you educate them, they only worry about the here, now and today and thinking 9 months down the road just doesn't cross their mind.

I don't think this is it at all. It is not about population control. For centuries men have used pregnancy to control women whether it is to keep them at home or whatever. When women gained control of their reproductive systems they gained freedom and have become much less oppressed. If they are denied access to effective birth control they lose freedom and control.

I think we have gotten a little circular. You dismiss what I post, so it doesn't matter.

I am still waiting on your rebuttle about technology killing jobs. Or you can continue to pick and choose the arguements that best suit you.[/quote h

 

I have given my reply, you may have skipped over it, or simply dismissed it. When "technology" was first introduced the machines used were muscle machines and required a large number of workers to produce them. The technology now is/are mind machines and do require the same number of workers to produce the 'machines' as the workers they displaced. That is why your "theory", and it is obviously theory since other studies can counteract it, was good in the 19th and early 20th centuries. We now can increase the level of production but the workers do not have a enough money to buy stuff, or they don't have any money at all. As the recession hit companies became much more efficient and found with technology they could actually increase or maintain production with fewer workers. If there are no jobs for them there will be no demand for the now efficiently produced goods.

The fact that you post theories does not make them fact. Are you reading what I am posting? I can certainly google the appropriate theorists and quote them just as easily. Here's mine:

Classical Economic theory predicts that an increase in the Minimum wage should lead to unemployment. If the minimum wage(Wtu) is placed above the equilibrium We, demand for labour falls creating unemployment of Q2 - Q1

minwage

In a survey amongst economists by Dan Fuller (2003), he found 46% of Economists agreed with the statement that “minimum wages cause unemployment amongst unskilled workers” only 24% disagreed with this statement. [1]

However, the experience of the UK is that increasing the minimum wage has been compatible with falling unemployment and rising levels of employment.

The minimum wage was introduced in the UK in 1999 at £3.30.

As of October 2007 the minimum wage for adult workers is £5.52. (It will rise to £5.73 by end of 2008)

There is a development rate for workers 18-21 of £4.60

For people under 18 (not of compulsory school age) the rate is £3.40

Source: National Minimum wage HMRC - [2]

In 1999, UK unemployment was 1,822,000 between January and March.(ILO method)

by 2008, UK unemployment has fallen to 1.61 million or 5.25%. Employment rates have also increased to 74%. The claimant count method is even lower at only 793,000 UK Unemployment stats

The experience of the UK is that a 67% increase in the NMW has reduced unemployment and increased employment. The UK is not isolated, in the US, studies have also show a link between increasing the NMW wage and negligible effects on employment. E.g. David Card and Alan Krueger, in their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage

Reasons Why Higher Minimum Wage has Led to Increased Employment

1. Strong Economic Growth. In period of economic growth, firms employ more workers as there is more demand to produce goods. Economic growth in the UK has averaged 2.5% since 1999

2. Monoposony Power. Classical theory assumes labour markets are competitive, but, in practice workers often face employers with buying power. This means firms are able to pay workers less than the market wage. Therefore, when a government artificially raises wages, firms can actually afford to pay them. It is argued minimum wage legislation is similar to anti trust regulation. [see: Monopsony and Minimum wages]

3. Increased Productivity. A study by David Metcalf [3] found that firms responded to increased wages by increasing the productivity of workers, especially in the service sector. This is important because it suggests that higher wages can actually help increase productivity in the economy.

4. Lower hours. Rather than make workers redundant, firms have reduced the average hours worked. This is related to part 3, firms try to get higher productivity in a shorter time, so they can afford the minimum wage.

5. Pass on Cost increases. Because the minimum wage affects all firms, it is easier for the cost increases to be passed onto consumers. e.g. because all cleaning firms have higher wage costs, they can all increase their prices. If the wage increase just affected one firm, they would become uncompetitive. (note: the rise in prices has not led to significant inflation in the UK)

6. Avoidance of Minimum Wage. It is uncertain to ascertain the extent of this problem, but some firms have circumvented the minimum wage legislation by employing immigrant labour and paying them lower wages. It also makes it more attractive to employ young workers.

To say that corporations simply are chasing after cheap labor is only partially correct, as there is more to successful capital investing than finding workers willing to toil for peanuts. If that were truly the case, as critics of the left and right are charging, then low-wage backwaters like Rwanda and Zimbabwe would receive the lion's share of investments from the West.

 

That individuals and corporations do not choose to invest simply where labor is cheapest should be obvious to people, since most capital development originating from western business owners is done either in other western countries or the more economically advanced regions in Asia.

 

If workers overseas own a comparative advantage to workers here because of the predations of U.S. national, state, and local governments (tort lawyer extortions and harassing and fining IRS, EPA, OSHA, EEOC and other regulatory bureaucracies, whose budgets demand a never ending supply of wrongdoers to be penalized.), it still is a comparative advantage and one cannot fault people for taking advantage of that situation. However, we must add that such a situation is self-inflicted. If U.S. workers want to price themselves out of market after market, they are free to do so, but must pay the consequences.

 

I have class, I'll explain myself further more and continue to teach you the ways.

 

In the mean time, I would love to read your retort on your assumption that technology kills jobs.

I disagree with almost none of this, however, this does make the point that it is a race to the bottom. If human rights were more strongly enforced, or enforced at all and the chinese government worried about the plight is its people (workers) they too would be making more than slave wages. I understand there may be all kinds of reasons for moving production elsewhere but wages is probably the strongest pull.

Why are those machines being made in foreign countries? And other items as well? Taxes and regulation. Labor unions. Thanks for proving my point.

Slave wages, thanks for proving my point.

It wouldn't surprise me to know you may disregard that entire post but at least read the quoted. You need to understand what you are saying, it's completely inaccurate but a common fallacy among many.

I don't dismiss the anecdotal story of the non-displacement of workers in the 18th and 19th centuries. But we aren't talking about those same machines. Were horses displaced from hauling goods around the country. I know it is a poor example but still it happened. How about the fact that in Waddy Kentucky I can order a hamburger at a mcdonald's without every talking to a human - at the drive up window. Or that I can go to Wal-Mart and Kroger and buy goods without ever talking to a human. Those jobs and those people have been displaced. If the computers used to allow me to purchase these things were made overseas then the profits of theses businesses are being being sent there and the jobs that were displaced will not return, the folks who were working in them will not have buying power, demand will go down and it does not matter the supply.

By the time the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938, it was already passed it's time. By 1930, only 6.4% of children between ages 10-15 years old were actually employed and 3 of those 4 were in agriculture. Emphasis was being placed on education as our economies were becoming more developed and there was not a need for child labor, which is natural. I can't rewrite it any simpler. The law was out-dated.

 

Iron Law by Karl Marx

 

That is one of the biggest fallacys ever. If the population is increasing, then food, necessaries, and conveniences must be made to support them. The demand for labor increases. Which, at the time, Marx completely ignored. (see below)

 

If wages rise above subsistence, population increases will drive them back down again. The rising standard of living in England in Marx's own day, as capitalism continued to develop, falsified the iron law, but Marx ignored this.

 

The power of the laborer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of laborers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase. The natural price of labor, therefore, depends on the price of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the laborer and his family. With a rise in the price of food and necessaries, the natural price of labor will rise; with the fall in their price. the natural price of labor will fall.

 

A rise in wages, from an alteration in the value of money, produces a general effect on price, and for that reason it produces no real effect whatever on profits.

 

The "Iron Law of Wages" is a very poor theory. Especially the part you are emphasizing on, subsistence over wages. If the population grows, the demand for goods grows, thus demanding more employment. The price on these goods and wages are determined by each other. A drop in wages results from a drop in prices (vice-versa). So no profit is lost or gained.

First of all I am not taking the Iron Law theory from Marx (Thomas Malthus) and I am not a pure theorist.

Secondly, even in the best of times, this country has not experienced 0 unemployment. The fact is the need for goods increases with increased population but not necessarily the need for labor, especially as technology grows. So your denouncement is a very poor denouncement because it was made in an age prior to the onslaught of technology. If there is not a minimum wage, and there is more than 1 person NEEDING a job the wage, in a pure capitalist system will be pushed down.

Child Labor

 

Child-labor laws were and are a blow against the freedom to work and a boost in government authority over the family. You might be surprised to know that the laws against "child labor" do not date from the 18th century. Indeed, the national law against child labor didn't pass until the Great Depression, in 1938 (Fair Labor Standards Act). It was the same law that gave us a minimum wage and defined what constitutes full-time and part-time work. It was a handy way to raise wages and lower the unemployment rate: simply define whole sectors of the potential workforce as unemployable.

 

By the time this legislation passed, however, it was mostly a symbol. Youth labor was expected in the 17th and 18th centuries, since remunerative work opportunities were newly present. But as prosperity grew with the advance of commerce, more kids left the workforce. By 1930, only 6.4 percent of kids between the ages of 10 and 15 were actually employed, and 3 out of 4 of those were in agriculture.

 

In wealthier, urban, industrialized areas, child labor was largely gone, as more and more kids were being schooled. Cultural factors were important here, but the most important consideration was economic. More developed economies permit parents to "purchase" their children's education out of the family's surplus income, if only by foregoing what would otherwise be their earnings.

 

Here is another example:

 

If I wanted to go to a gas station and tell them I will stand outside and pump people's gas for 3$/hr, just work enough to make money to eat, then I should have the right to do so. It provides employment for low-productive jobs. Jobs your policy take away and mandate the people who it effected to become dependent on the government.

 

Slave wages

 

The economic case against minimum wage laws is simple. Employers pay a wage no higher than the value of an additional hour's work. Raising minimum wages forces employers to dismiss low productivity workers. This policy has the largest affect on those with the least education, job experience, and maturity. Consequently, we should expect minimum wage laws to affect teenagers and those with less education. Eliminating minimum wage laws would reduce unemployment and improve the efficiency of markets for low productivity labor.

The Iron Law of Wages

Although the full theory is fairly irrelevant today in that wages do not have a lot to do with population growth, the idea has some merit. Without some regulation wages will tend to fall as the population grows. The theory said that if the population grew enough the wages would fall so that people could not survive and the then the population would fall again. Since the population continues to grow, there will ALWAYS be more people than there are jobs. The wages then would be rock bottom. If you will go and work for $3 what is to keep me, the unemployed one, from going to the same gas station and saying that I will do it for $2. Now I have a job, but we are both poor and neither of us can survive. The minimum wage - a regulation keeps that from happening - some.

I am not understanding your point on history of child labor.

Quit being emotionally attached to Obama, it's weird..

 

Where did I blame him for those policies? I spoke of the government, not a particular individual in the government.

 

 

 

You are still completely missing my point...

"new" regulations ??

 

I'm not playing a blame game with you. I am addressing all regulations, whether they were implemented by Obama, or not. They have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

So we go back to a discussion we have had on here before. "All regulations are bad." Lead in paint is okay. Asbestos is okay. Child labor is okay? Slave wages are okay?

Do the new regs imposed on coal burning power plants promote people being hired when the power companies decide to close the plants because of the increased regulatory costs?

Where has that happened? My assumption is that the cost would be passed on to the customer. Too much money to be made otherwise. It is still not cheaper to burn oil, maybe it is with natural gas, not sure but people will keep needing the power.

Also, government regulations.

What specific new regulations keep people from hiring?

It's centralized and our succeses depend on close ties between government officials and business people. I.e. special tax breaks, government grants, legal permits.

But that is not Obama.

I want him to cut federal jobs. You didnt see me blaming Obama for not creating jobs. The government should leave that to the currently not-so-free, free market.

What is not free about the market right now?

Government jobs have declined 2.6 percent under Obama, somewhere between 5 and 6 hundred thousand. To suggest that he has grown the government is silly. So he gets it from both ends. He has to shrink the government (cut jobs) and yet create jobs. When he shrinks the government payroll it raises the the unemployment. Kind of tough isn't it.

I know this may be shocking to some, but I do think it is an overstepping of the bounds of government. When you go to work for a Catholic organization you should be aware of the restrictions that may be placed on the procedures or prescriptions covered by the "Church's" insurance plan.

Given that, it begs the question as to why insurance is tied to ones work. We should have a very different system so that folks can afford to go buy it on their own, or we should have a single payer system, that people pay for.

the other question that is begged (???) is whether or not gay kids can go to St. X or Trinity on "scholarship"? Can the diocese deny them access to the education? Can they deny access to the schools or insurance to gluttons. Why is it only birth control?

You're missing my point. Compare the amount of people employed and there hasn't been an increase. The report doesn't count a significant group that has not continued to actively search for work.

No I am not missing your point. Those same people were not counted 10 years ago either. As to RTS's #s there are a lot of folks growing into retirement age, and a growth in population would usually occur in the younger ages who don't work, so I guess the real question is how many people were of working age in 2009 and how many are now.

Not entirely. It's rather lenient if you look at unemployment as a whole.

But it is the way we have been calculating it for years. So it is moving in a positive direction considering it was at or over 10 a couple of years ago, and it is at 8.3 compared to the 5.?? it was when the economy is rolling. It is only not positive if you want to spin it that way.

I am absolutely behind him.

Oh, I misunderstood, my apologies. Either way it's an individuals personal preference.

I am agreeing with you guys that he was not much of a $$ giver to charitable organizations.

Come on folks. I realize this is a wacky partisan forum, but come on. President Obama's efforts to stimulate tourism in the Unites States (particularly by foreigners) is a good thing. Almost anything the federal govt can do to bring foreign money into our economy should be lauded; not attacked. I feel the same about President Obama's past efforts to stimulate exporting by US manufacturers. Think of the US as being a big bucket filled with dollars. If we don't replenish the bucket with foreign money to compensate for all the domestic money leaving the bucket to purchase foreign products (oil, electronics, etc.) the dollars in the bucket get much fewer. Every Renminbi, every Deutchemark, every Franc, etc that gets spent in the US helps the US economy significantly. If tourism by foreigners can be increased without increasing the ease that terrorists slip into the US, I'm all for it (and you should be too). While I generally feel the federal govt should played a very narrow role in the economy, I realize that during very tough economies, the federal govt needs to play a more active role. This is one of those times in my opinion.

I agree.

On another thread somewhere there was discussion of the fall of some of the world's empire. As a teacher of World History (only a survey course, I claim to be no expert in all things "worldly") I noticed that one common theme among many of the falls was the trade deficit. Too much money leaving the country to purchase cheaper foreign goods. At some point the money in your "bucket" is gone. Not only does it cause a money issue, but it reduces mfg. in this country and as a result fewer jobs and thus we begin the cycle.

This is entirely not true. Charitable contributions to a church are every bit as deductible as contributions to any other charitable organization.

I know they are deductible - the article was saying they didn't think Biden included that. Which I said I doubted.

Romney's 15% was to the church, and I count mine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

Definitely week. Some sources say it doesn't count what he gives to the Church, but I am doubting that.