Economic Freedom and quality of life.

[AKATheMack]

Why are labor laws not enforced in the same way as sex laws? They should have included labor laws under the protect act.

[Jim Jeffries]

The first two are not even worth mentioning. They basically simply argue that the purview of estimating the value of entry level employment should be with the corporations and not the government. Sophistry.

And here we see the results of a confirmation bias clouding the judgment of a pseudo-intellectual desperate to wow us with the few two dollar words he learned in lieu of a meaningful education. He ignores real science because it conflicts with the dogma imbued into him by tenured indoctrinators.

The good doctor goes on to chiefly mention how it impacts people seeking a little extra income but fails to mention that one cannot afford to live on even minimum wage, much less something south of that mark.

Because of inflation caused in large part by an artificially high minimum wage.

Where one income was enough in decades past, now 2 and more are required in many cases. Hell, one guy talks about teenage joblessness! Sadly, that's the norm in this country, but it was not always.

No, it was not a large problem before the institution of our min wage.

Sure, if we want to go back to the age of sweatshops and women in sewing lines...yeah, let's abolish the minimum wage.

And here comes the absurd fear mongering. In Virginia, illegals regularly make $100 for an 8 hour day of unskilled labor. As you get closer to the border, that wage goes down slightly, but never anywhere close to the "sweatshops and women in sewing lines" wages and conditions of say the Chinese, whom you hold in such high regard.

Why are labor laws not enforced in the same way as sex laws? They should have included labor laws under the protect act.

Last I checked, at least in this country, people entering into a work agreement (from either side) do so willingly. I would like to see large employers of undocumented workers facing significantly steeper penalties, but I'd prefer to see annual work permits issued to those workers. Renewal of which would be based on work history and criminal record.

[AKATheMack]

Last I checked, at least in this country, people entering into a work agreement (from either side) do so willingly. I would like to see large employers of undocumented workers facing significantly steeper penalties, but I'd prefer to see annual work permits issued to those workers. Renewal of which would be based on work history and criminal record.

I was speaking specifically of the Protect Act where U.S sex laws can be enforced regardless of where the crime occurred. If we enforce labor laws in the same manner it becomes less beneficial to move U.S companies over seas and provides more jobs to actual Americans. The US jobs that go to foreigners in America is nothing compared to the US jobs that go to foreigners in other countries.

[Jim Jeffries]

I was speaking specifically of the Protect Act where U.S sex laws can be enforced regardless of where the crime occurred. If we enforce labor laws in the same manner it becomes less beneficial to move U.S companies over seas and provides more jobs to actual Americans. The US jobs that go to foreigners in America is nothing compared to the US jobs that go to foreigners in other countries.

We'd still be buying goods and services from overseas regardless of whether those companies are US owned or not, unless you're talking about dramatically raising tariffs. But I suppose it would be a way of getting politically protected corporations like GE to actually pay something in federal taxes (despite 14.2 billion in profit in 2010 alone.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558

[AKATheMack]

We'll still be buying goods and services from overseas regardless of whether those companies are US owned or not, unless you're talking about dramatically raising tariffs. But I suppose it would be a way of getting politically protected corporations like GE to actually pay something in federal taxes (despite 14.2 billion in profit in 2010 alone.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558

Im not suggesting we stop importing foreign goods, but we cant give companies tax breaks for going overseas and allow them to take advantage of overseas labor laws or there is no reason to have an American based business. Its just a much wiser decision financially to take advantage of labor laws in countries where human rights isnt much of an issue. If we want jobs created in the U.S it cant be advantageous to go elsewhere.

[Jim Jeffries]

Im not suggesting we stop importing foreign goods, but we cant give companies tax breaks for going overseas and allow them to take advantage of overseas labor laws or there is no reason to have an American based business. Its just a much wiser decision financially to take advantage of labor laws in countries where human rights isnt much of an issue. If we want jobs created in the U.S it cant be advantageous to go elsewhere.

Again you can bring those companies home, where we can tax and regulate them out of business, but we're still going to be using imported goods and services just the same.

Are you familiar with the Boeing case in South Carolina?

[AKATheMack]

Again you can bring those companies home, where we can tax and regulate them out of business, but we're still going to be using imported goods and services just the same.

Are you familiar with the Boeing case in South Carolina?

Its not always a matter of necessity that these companies move overseas, its about chasing higher profit. Its not that they wont make profits by paying US workers they can just make bigger profits elsewhere. Im also not against tax breaks for the purpose of creating jobs, but the taxes will have to be signicantly lower if they are able to pay 1/10th the labor somewhere else. If labor laws are enforced we dont have to eliminate taxes altogether to be able to bring US jobs home. Im not aware of the Boeing case but I will look at it now.

[Jim Jeffries]

Its not always a matter of necessity that these companies move overseas, its about chasing higher profit.

For all of the ills profit is perceived to cause, you'd think Progressives would've made it illegal by now.

Its not that they wont make profits by paying US workers they can just make bigger profits elsewhere.

Conjecture. It is extremely difficult for anyone to hire in this country right now, without knowing what they'll be paying in taxes, or what the ever increasing insurance premiums (now mandated) will cost them.

Im also not against tax breaks for the purpose of creating jobs, but the taxes will have to be signicantly lower if they are able to pay 1/10th the labor somewhere else.

Tax "breaks" for those people who pay the overwhelming majority of income taxes in this country. Interesting choice of words.

If labor laws are enforced we dont have to eliminate taxes altogether to be able to bring US jobs home.

For all the jobs that eliminating NAFTA and forcing further regulations on US companies operating abroad will allegedly create in this country, consider this. After six long years of "the worst President ever," NAFTA and the ability of US citizens to run businesses overseas (free of costly, burdensome US regulations,) unemployment was exactly half of what it is today (which is to say about 7 million more Americans employed.)

Im not aware of the Boeing case but I will look at it now.

Essentially Boeing, which has been plagued by costly strikes in Washington State, in an effort to fill orders for their new 787 on time, built a 750 million dollar plant in South Carolina and hired 1000 workers. The head of the NLRB waited until after the plant was built to tell Boeing no can do, because SC is a right to work state.

[AKATheMack]

For all of the ills profit is perceived to cause, you'd think Progressives would've made it illegal by now.

When record breaking profits and record unemploymeny rates coincide, wouldnt you say its an issue?
Conjecture. It is extremely difficult for anyone to hire in this country right now, without knowing what they'll be paying in taxes, or what the ever increasing insurance premiums (now mandated) will cost them.

This country hasnt been hiring people for quite some time now and there has been a plethora of reasons why. At some point excuses are going to have to quit being made and something is going to have to be done
Tax "breaks" for those people who pay the overwhelming majority of income taxes in this country. Interesting choice of words.

The people with the overwhelming majority of the money paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes, seems like a fairly simple conclusion to come to.
For all the jobs that eliminating NAFTA and forcing further regulations on US companies operating abroad will allegedly create in this country, consider this. After six long years of "the worst President ever," NAFTA and the ability of US citizens to run businesses overseas (free of costly, burdensome US regulations,) unemployment was exactly half of what it is today (which is to say about 7 million more Americans employed.)

I spoke on an issue that has to do with more than just the economy. Bush put the Protect Act in place to help end child abuse, its hypocritical to only enforce this child protection when it comes to individuals and not big business. Interesting figure, but there are so many more issues when it comes to the economy its impossible to say that a=b. Im not arguing against your point but facts can be manipulated and interpreted in different ways.

Essentially Boeing, which has been plagued by costly strikes in Washington State, in an effort to fill orders for their new 787 on time, built a 750 million dollar plant in South Carolina and hired 1000 workers. The head of the NLRB waited until after the plant was built to tell Boeing no can do, because SC is a right to work state.

I read the article and have nothing to add, its just dumb.

[Nuurzhaelan]

And here we see the results of a confirmation bias clouding the judgment of a pseudo-intellectual desperate to wow us with the few two dollar words he learned in lieu of a meaningful education. He ignores real science because it conflicts with the dogma imbued into him by tenured indoctrinators.

Who is desperate to do anything? I am simply telling you what, to me, appears to be common sense. If there is a science I am missing I would prefer you explain it to me as you understand it rather than just posting videos of so-called economists who seem hell bent on pandering to corporate interests. How many jobs is too many for an adult?

As I understood them, those videos advocated removing the minimum wage because it would give corporations/businesses greater control over what they pay employees and it would 'end unemployment'. Those are weak and narrow views which conveniently avoid one salient point: the cost of living, in this country, does not adjust with salary for the employee trying to get ahead. Even EIC is not nearly enough to offset the costs incurred by a single adult. Advocating abolition of the minimum wage argues for the re-emergence of the serf class.

Because of inflation caused in large part by an artificially high minimum wage.

Employers may expect more from an employee at a standard minimum wage than without one. Try living on minimum wage. I'll even let you choose the lowest cost section of the US to live in and show me a budget that meets a reasonable standard of living on a minimum wage.

No, it was not a large problem before the institution of our min wage.

Define '...not a large problem...' There are arguments for and against minimum wage, but the ones against do not seem to bear out...with the exception of contributing to inflation...but this happens even without a minimum wage. Minimum wage stimulates consumption, it provides the impetus for automation in factories (something corporations love), it allows employers to reasonably demand more for the money they are paying and it reduces the cost of social welfare programs. Additionally, a strong minimum wage reduces crime.

And here comes the absurd fear mongering. In Virginia, illegals regularly make $100 for an 8 hour day of unskilled labor. As you get closer to the border, that wage goes down slightly, but never anywhere close to the "sweatshops and women in sewing lines" wages and conditions of say the Chinese, whom you hold in such high regard.

Accuse me of fear mongering? Okay, I can roll with that. Show me. Show me that illegals make $100 for only 8 hours a day of unskilled labor. And how many of them get this rate? Are those receiving this rate the special few or are the masses getting that much? Is that $100.00 for 8 hours under the table or is it taxed?

Last I checked, at least in this country, people entering into a work agreement (from either side) do so willingly. I would like to see large employers of undocumented workers facing significantly steeper penalties, but I'd prefer to see annual work permits issued to those workers. Renewal of which would be based on work history and criminal record.

Yes and no. Right now people are taking what jobs they can get and are often very overqualified for those positions. Being underemployed in a desperate bid to feed your family is not a willing contract. It's coercion.