Economic Freedom and quality of life.

[Jim Jeffries]

Except that Australia has primarily socialized medicine and China is a communist country. Minimum wage jobs do not come with benefits, a term in the US to describe optional things like paid holiday and maternity leave, bereavement time, health care and sick leave of which at least paid holiday, maternity and sick leave are mandated by Australia and China.

Minimum wage jobs do however qualify you for Medicaid, and a Social Security check (plus Medicare) when you reach retirement age. And give you experience in the work force which leads to bigger and better jobs.

If the US should emulate Australia and China in its movement toward a freer market, perhaps it should also socialize a bit more like Australia and Europe have done in order to combat the race to the bottom with diminished salaries, benefits packages and declining quality of life for the lower middle class and poor. Additionally, if minimum wage is abolished, perhaps companies should be restricted from farming their jobs overseas a bit more. You know, do the patriotic thing and become good corporate citizens.

Nobody says the US should emulate Australia and China (certainly not China.) The point, that you so conveniently seem to ignore, is that the more they open their markets up, the more prosperous they become. And the more we try to give ownership and control of private industries to our federal gov, the more disastrous the results.

Worth noting that the countries in Europe that haven't augmented austerity measures into their budgets, are failing miserably. And the only highly socialist European countries that are doing fairly well have a huge supply of North Sea oil to sell at 100 bucks a barrel (artificially inflated by speculators and our unwillingness to drill more of our own.)

Jeffries, I agree with that but there is also a happy medium. I am not for a 100% free market and I do think that government should be in control of certain things, for one a health care OPTION so people can have basic medical care.

Believe it or not, I am very conservative in the governments involvement in my life and in many other things.

This country has gone down the ****ter since Bush, wars, deficit, job loss, education failure, there's a lot of problems.

I'm not for a 100% free market either. There have to be some regulations, on pollution for example. Seems silly to bring up Bush and deficit, when an almost equal amount has been added to the debt in just 2 1/2 years. Or wars, when we're involved in about 5 at the moment.

You know, the people that were sourced in this disingenuous 'informative video'. Yeah, those people. 'On average' is an interesting term. I am not going to delineate on how many levels this video and its sourcing fail, but a narrow vision supported by right-wing think tanks makes this video fallacious and anecdotal at best.

Why don't you point out specific areas in which this video is fallacious? A video which BTW illustrates the wrong direction we've been heading in for the last decade, which includes Bush (like Obama, a big government drone.)

I love how the guy drones on about Civil Liberties...Patriot Act. HAHAHA!

You mean the same Patriot Act that Obama just extended for 4 years?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_867851.html

And later on down in this same thread, you label a high school education a 'luxury'. Unbelievable.

No, I said that some people don't have the luxury of being able to complete high school, ie have to drop out to help support the family.

Another thing you do is implicitly argue that people who do not have the means are simply not going to succeed in college (which has been reduced in prestige to what a high school diploma was about 30 years ago),

Not everyone has the ability to succeed in college, which BTW has increased in cost far faster than inflation, and will soon reach a level where it is simply not cost effective.

so they should automatically relegate themselves to substandard livelihoods, subsisting at the mercy of corporations that you imply should dictate how much people get paid at a minimum.

Now you're just rambling on nonsensically. (Corporations don't dictate anything in a (non crony) capitalist economy, free markets do.)

And of course, this is all without even considering how, as I mentioned above, the US does not mandate 'bennies' for its citizens.

Perhaps you're not aware, but the 2 trillion or so in "bennies" that our Federal Government already pays out annually is bankrupting us, and our economy is not in any state to be adding any mandates to anyone or any business.

[Nuurzhaelan]

Minimum wage jobs do however qualify you for Medicaid and Social Security when you retire. And give you experience in the work force which leads to bigger and better jobs.

Really? Who can retire from a minimum wage job? Could you? And Medicaid or SS??? The same institutions that the republicans are desperately hoping to dismantle? What happens then?

Nobody says the US should emulate Australia and China (certainly not China.) The point, that you so conveniently seem to ignore, is that the more they open their markets up, the more prosperous they become. And the more we try to give ownership and control of private industries to our federal gov, the more disastrous the results.

No, the more prosperous corporations become. Conservative 'trickle down' theory does not work because avarice prevents it from doing so. In Australia where they do not have minimum wage (I am assuming you are correct here) they DO have state mandated vacation, sick and maternity leave, plus they have a primarily social medical system. *I* am suggesting that the US emulate Australia on these matters if you are suggesting that the US abolish minimum wage.

Working 70 hours a week to eke out a living, as you are suggesting, is not the answer.

Worth noting that the countries in Europe that haven't augmented austerity measures into their budgets, are failing miserably. And the only highly socialist European countries that are doing fairly well have a huge supply of North Sea oil to sell at 100 bucks a barrel (helped out by our unwillingness to drill more of our own.)

You mean...Greece and Ireland? I won't pretend to understand the intricacies, but

http://iuwest.wordpress.com/2010/08/...to-appreciate/

seems to suggest that it was not simply a matter of too many people retiring at once, it was also the onset of the global recession (hmmm, who caused that, I wonder? Perhaps a lack of regulation and as the decider coined it 'Wallstreet got drunk'...from a drunkard that's rich) coupled by the infrastructure projects started by Greece at a time when things were looking good for them. Short sited, to be certain, but with a slower pace they could have weathered this rather well, I am sure.

Ireland had a banking crisis caused by, surprise surprise, dirty dealings by their financial institutions which, corporate welfare anyone?, were bailed out by the government. Of course this was precipitated by the global financial crisis which was caused by...anyone? Wall Street USA.

I'm not for a 100% free market either. There have to be some regulations, on pollution for example. Seems silly to bring up Bush and deficit, when an almost equal amount has been added to the debt in just 2 1/2 years. Or wars, when we're involved in about 5 at the moment.

Really? Which wars are those? Afghanistan...loosely Libya and what other war?

Oh, and 'debt'? Corporate welfare? bush tax law that was extended? A military that could be sharply reduced without harming our security. What else, I wonder?

Why don't you point out specific areas in which this video is fallacious?

Well, to start the video was made by a right wing group. It cites a right wing group as its source assuming that the information provided is truthful or at least an honest representation of facts. Then it proceeds to tell the audience that the free market makes more prosperous people and the source is the Fraser Institute which espouses free market principles. That is begging the question (arguing in circles, assuming a conclusion in the premise and then using that to lead one to the conclusion).

No, I said that some people don't have the luxury of being able to complete high school, ie have to drop out to help support the family.

Education should never be considered a luxury. That is precisely how societies create chasms in social strata. Education should be a right, not a privilege because it provides a foundation for the nation. People who are bright but cannot afford education will then be unable to excel in a society whose competitive requirements are predicated on education. It inherently drives down the competition libertarians support so vigorously. Basically, you automatically shrink the base from which companies and governments might pull their brightest people since bright minds are not automatically born into wealth and security.

Not everyone has the ability to succeed in college, which BTW has increased in cost far faster than inflation, and will soon reach a level where it is simply not cost effective.

No, but that does not mean they should not be able to at least try. How would you feel if you wanted something only to be told you are disqualified before you even know if you could have been a contender? Most people would want the opportunity to at least find out...and even less sophisticated minds can be cultivated with proper instruction.

Perhaps you're not aware, but the 2 trillion or so in "bennies" that our Federal Government already pays out annually is bankrupting us, and our economy is not in any state to be adding any mandates to anyone or any business.

Actually, it appears that 2 trillion in 'bennies' is an overstatement. A big one. Furthermore, we pay into SS, so retirees ought to be able to withdraw from it.

If you want to cancel SS, fine. Give me all the money I ever paid into it back...same with medicaid/medicare. FWIW, I am fine paying extra in taxes to provide for the vulnerable of our society, and I am NOT well off.

I make about $43,000 a year...in NJ, one of the most corrupt states in the union with the about the highest property taxes and among the highest sales taxes in the union. Yes, I am willing to pay more in taxes so that the vulnerable (old, infirm and poor) can do more than merely eke out a living.

I know there are problems with people taking more than their share and fudging reports that are not checked so they can get more money and so forth. But I would rather have the system for people who use it responsibly than not have it at all. And no, I do not, and have never collected one cent from welfare, unemployment, medicaid or medicare. When I was 23 I had to have two wisdom teeth pulled. I had a crap temporary job (when companies did not want to pay benefits, so I could not find permanent work) with no vacation, sick or medical care and I paid for that **** out of pocket. After the surgery I could only afford pain medications or antibiotics. I elected to purchase the way overpriced antibiotics and dealt with the pain for a few days at that lovely ****hole that provided no benefits or sick leave or vacation time.

So if someone who makes a low income and has been there can advocate for more taxes on himself so that the needy of our country aren't as needy, why can't rich people?

[Jim Jeffries]

Yawn, I expected better after an hour and a half. Here's 2 minutes:

Really? Who can retire from a minimum wage job? Could you? And Medicaid or SS??? The same institutions that the republicans are desperately hoping to dismantle? What happens then?

Nobody stays at minimum wage their entire career. But obviously if min wage is too high, the poor and uneducated never get to enter the marketplace in the first place. You've been drinking too much of the coolaid if you think Republicans are trying to dismantle Medicaid and SS. Dems are the ones with their heads in the sand, ignoring the fact that these programs so desperately need reform to survive, to the detriment of this and future generations.

No, the more prosperous corporations become. Conservative 'trickle down' theory does not work because avarice prevents it from doing so. In Australia where they do not have minimum wage (I am assuming you are correct here) they DO have state mandated vacation, sick and maternity leave, plus they have a primarily social medical system. *I* am suggesting that the US emulate Australia on these matters if you are suggesting that the US abolish minimum wage.

Working 70 hours a week to eke out a living, as you are suggesting, is not the answer.

Erm trickle down worked magnificently during Reagan's last 6 years, thank you very much. I never mentioned Australia having a minimum wage, you might want to reread my posts. The point of bringing up Aus, which you seem to miss, is that their economy is improving at the same time ours is going down the toilet, while we are heading in opposite directions, free market score wise. 2/3 of Americans think we are still heading in the wrong direction and I agree wholeheartedly.

You mean...Greece and Ireland? I won't pretend to understand the intricacies, but

http://iuwest.wordpress.com/2010/08/...to-appreciate/

seems to suggest that it was not simply a matter of too many people retiring at once, it was also the onset of the global recession (hmmm, who caused that, I wonder? Perhaps a lack of regulation and as the decider coined it 'Wallstreet got drunk'...from a drunkard that's rich) coupled by the infrastructure projects started by Greece at a time when things were looking good for them. Short sited, to be certain, but with a slower pace they could have weathered this rather well, I am sure.

Ireland had a banking crisis caused by, surprise surprise, dirty dealings by their financial institutions which, corporate welfare anyone?, were bailed out by the government. Of course this was precipitated by the global financial crisis which was caused by...anyone? Wall Street USA.

Socialist countries like Greece were bankrupted by excessive public union pensions, much like what's happening here.

Really? Which wars are those? Afghanistan...loosely Libya and what other war?

We're doing drone attacks in Pakistan and who knows what in Yemen. You can deny Iraq still being a war if you'd like, but Americans are still dying there in large numbers.

Oh, and 'debt'? Corporate welfare? bush tax law that was extended? A military that could be sharply reduced without harming our security. What else, I wonder?

Obama has given us historic deficits. A Nancy Pelosi led Congress for two straight years before that, almost half of our total debt can be attributed to her reign in the House and a Dem Senate to rubber stamp her crappy bills. Yes Obama extended the Bush tax cuts (which actually increased revenues after the first couple years,) what's your point? Haven't seen Barry decrease military spending either.

Well, to start the video was made by a right wing group. It cites a right wing group as its source assuming that the information provided is truthful or at least an honest representation of facts. Then it proceeds to tell the audience that the free market makes more prosperous people and the source is the Fraser Institute which espouses free market principles. That is begging the question (arguing in circles, assuming a conclusion in the premise and then using that to lead one to the conclusion).

So not a single example? I figured as much. You get all of your news from left wing sources. Shall I take that to mean you don't know anything that hasn't gone through the lefty spin cycle? Because it certainly seems that way.

Education should never be considered a luxury. That is precisely how societies create chasms in social strata. Education should be a right, not a privilege because it provides a foundation for the nation. People who are bright but cannot afford education will then be unable to excel in a society whose competitive requirements are predicated on education. It inherently drives down the competition libertarians support so vigorously. Basically, you automatically shrink the base from which companies and governments might pull their brightest people since bright minds are not automatically born into wealth and security.

Again with the Education as a luxury shpeel. Our government does a poor enough job with the first 12 grades and where it gets involved in secondary education, the quality suffers as well. I'll pass.

No, but that does not mean they should not be able to at least try. How would you feel if you wanted something only to be told you are disqualified before you even know if you could have been a contender? Most people would want the opportunity to at least find out...and even less sophisticated minds can be cultivated with proper instruction.

We can't afford the welfare state we have. How about we ixne on the further entitlements till we can afford the ones we have.

Actually, it appears that 2 trillion in 'bennies' is an overstatement. A big one. Furthermore, we pay into SS, so retirees ought to be able to withdraw from it.

Actually 1.985 trillion is pretty darn close to 2 trillion. And SS is a ponzi scheme that will be long gone after 20 more years of Baby Boomers take their share.

If you want to cancel SS, fine. Give me all the money I ever paid into it back...same with medicaid/medicare. FWIW, I am fine paying extra in taxes to provide for the vulnerable of our society, and I am NOT well off.

Trust me, without Republicans to reform the system, there won't be anything left of SS by the time you retire and you won't see a penny.

It's admiral that you're willing to pay more in taxes, I'm not. Unfortunately almost half of wage earners don't pay a single penny in income taxes and many of those actually get a check (EIC.) You don't want to reform any of our entitlements, cut down one cent on the 3.7 trillion our gov is spending (outside of military spending, apparently) and in fact want to add additional entitlements. You live in a fantasy world, created by your party to assure your vote.

[Mitch5]

@jim jeffries Are you really saying that the republicans had nothing to do with whats going on in america now? both parties actually are responsible for the mess in america but for you to solely blame one party for this problem is simply not factual.

[Jim Jeffries]

@jim jeffries Are you really saying that the republicans had nothing to do with whats going on in america now? both parties actually are responsible for the mess in america but for you to solely blame one party for this problem is simply not factual.

As the video points out, we've been heading in the wrong direction for at least a decade, which as I've already said, includes both parties. Bush increased the size of government and added almost 5 trillion to our debt and Obama has inc the size of gov and added well over 4 trillion to our debt. But I'm thankful that you admit both parties have had a hand in the mess we're in. If more people would admit that (quit playing the blame game,) perhaps we could get around to actually doing something about it.

[Nuurzhaelan]

Yawn, I expected better after an hour and a half. Here's 2 minutes:

And it reads as if you only put two minutes into even just typing all that? And of course, obviously because it took you 90 minutes to see it again means it took me precisely 90 minutes to read and respond from the second that you posted.

Nobody stays at minimum wage their entire career. But obviously if min wage is too high, the poor and uneducated never get to enter the marketplace in the first place. You've been drinking too much of the coolaid if you think Republicans are trying to dismantle Medicaid and SS. Dems are the ones with their heads in the sand, ignoring the fact that these programs so desperately need reform, to the detriment of this and future generations.

How is it obvious that if minimum wage is too high that the poor and uneducated never get to enter the market place? We're talking about jobs here, not careers. There is a marked difference between the two. Jobs are unskilled labor. Careers generally require a specific trade or skillset or training. Careers command certain salaries on their own, depending on how much their skills are desired. When an employee has no skills but can push a broom, take out garbage and in general labor but do little else, what is the company's incentive to give him more? How do unskilled laborers command more money for their contributions? Furthermore, how is he to afford education required to elevate him from unskilled labor?

Erm trickle down worked magnificently during Reagan's last 6 years, thank you very much. I never mentioned Australia having a minimum wage, you might want to reread my posts. The point of bringing up Aus, which you seem to miss, is that their economy is improving at the same time ours is going down the toilet, while we are heading in opposite directions, free market score wise. 2/3 of Americans think we are still heading in the wrong direction and I agree wholeheartedly.

Really? Well, it certainly is not working now when ceos and rich people are making 571 times what their employees are making. The reason that the economy sucks is partly due to the stagnant wages the vanishing middle class are expected to cope with in addition to a rising cost of living, health care and fuel (although it has come down recently, thanks in NO part to speculators) while CEOs and corporations continue to take profits as opposed to helping out the people in their employ.

The point YOU seem to be missing is that Australia requires companies to provide its citizens working in the country with mandated sick, vacation and maternity leave in addition to having socialized health care which US citizens are not guaranteed by law. That is, Australia can afford to go a little farther to the right because it has a lot of social programs already. The US has no such protections and advantages in place for its citizens. And you're STILL arguing for the loss of minimum wage.

Socialist countries like Greece were bankrupted by excessive public union pensions, much like what's happening here.

NO, as I pointed out, it's because their economy was doing well when they embarked on overly aggressive infrastructure projects when the global financial crisis hit. A global crisis caused by bush and his abysmal law that allowed financial institutions to write their own regulatory measures and authorized self-enforcement of those regulations. Convenient if you just want to ignore the regulations you just passed. bush provided for more regulations, but did so in a way that effectively deregulated the market by placing oversight and regulation of the markets with themselves and not the government.

You never bothered to respond to Ireland's crisis. Guess it did not fit your argument, so you ignored it. You're cherry picking again.

Which highly socialized European countries that are doing fairly well have North Sea oil subsidizing their economies that is being sold for '100 bucks a barrel'? I'd love to know.

We're doing drone attacks in Pakistan and who knows what in Yemen. You can deny Iraq still being a war if you'd like, but Americans are still dying there in large numbers.

Who started the Iraqi war? Why was that war started? I will give you a hint:

haliburton
WMDs that were never found
because Saddam threatened the Decider in Cheif's daddy
because he was a despot (amazing how only the despots of major oil suppliers are targeted)
to get osama bin laden (of whom bush later admitted he did not even think about)

As for the others, well, I am for them stopping as well. But they are not wars, more like police actions and they are not nearly as costly as the years of prosecuting an illegal war in Iraq. Yes, it was illegal. We attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq without a formal declaration of war or aggression against the US, without UN approval, for weapons that the UN said were not there, under pretenses of having intelligence that we did NOT have to get a man bush would later admit he was not in the least concerned with capturing anyway. (I dare you to ask for proof on this)

So, if Iraq is STILL a war, then bush did something illegal by both Domestic and International standards and should be prosecuted for it. I don't know what President Obama is doing, but clearly we should not be engaging in more wars for the moment. We have become a war state, and that is not good.

Obama has given us historic deficits. A Nancy Pelosi led Congress for two straight years before that, almost half of our total debt can be attributed to her reign in the House and a Dem Senate to rubber stamp her crappy bills. Yes Obama extended the Bush tax cuts (which actually increased revenues after the first couple years,) what's your point? Haven't seen Barry decrease military spending either.

President Obama SHOULD decrease military spending, but hawkish republicans would flash the Patriot card or the Terrorism card.

Could you please show me how these tax reductions did anything to increase revenues for anyone OTHER THAN corporations and the wealthiest 2%?

So not a single example? I figured as much. You get all of your news from left wing sources. Shall I take that to mean you don't know anything that hasn't gone through the lefty spin cycle? Because it certainly seems that way.

A single example of what? I spelled it out for you already.

Again with the Education as a luxury shpeel. Our government does a poor enough job with the first 12 grades and where it gets involved in secondary education, the quality suffers as well. I'll pass.

I am not the one who thinks education is a luxury. You're the one who implied it first. How does the government doing a poor job with education answer the charge that it should not be considered a luxury?

We can't afford the welfare state we have. How about we ixne on the further entitlements till we can afford the ones we have.

To what 'further entitlements' are you referring?

Actually 1.985 trillion is pretty darn close to 2 trillion. And SS is a ponzi scheme that will be long gone after 20 more years of Baby Boomers take their share.

Yeah, much of that we pay into so we SHOULD expect a return. As for the ponzi scheme allegation try this:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...tune/index.htm

Basically, there is no promise of huge returns and no one is being duped. It is not fraudulent. You may not like it, but it's there for everyone's benefit and the payoff is modest at best.

Trust me, without Republicans to reform the system, there won't be anything left of SS by the time you retire and you won't see a penny.

Man alive, you accuse me of listening to left wing spin when you just regurgitate the same talking points that fox and limbaugh make? You're ridiculous. Ultimately, privatizing social security reduces the benefits people will see and it will simply give unscrupulous brokers an enormous pool of money to do with as they please.

http://socialsecurity.procon.org/

As far as I am concerned, the cons WAY outweigh the pros.

And when did I suggest I want MORE entitlements? I just don't want the ones we have subverted by greed or political expediency so that profiteers may benefit instead of the beneficiaries who contributed to them throughout their lives (in the case of Medicare/Medicaid and SS) and I don't want welfare cancelled because some vermin play the system.

FWIW, I do not like paying taxes either. But, I am not a selfish person (nor am I implying that you are, but I think your ideas are skewed) and I would rather these systems be in place than not.

[Mitch5]

As the video points out, we've been heading in the wrong direction for at least a decade, which as I've already said, includes both parties. Bush increased the size of government and added almost 5 trillion to our debt and Obama has inc the size of gov and added well over 4 trillion to our debt. But I'm thankful that you admit both parties have had a hand in the mess we're in. If more people would admit that (quit playing the blame game,) perhaps we could get around to actually doing something about it.

ok I was just wondering where you stood on the issue.

[Jim Jeffries]

Hey Nuurz, you seem like a smart enough guy (though just a bit misinformed and with an obvious confirmation bias,) but you're ignoring my responses and coming up with several more questions for each one I answer. I can't tell if your first question about minimum wage is serious, or if you're just messing with me, but if it's the former, I suggest you watch one or more of these videos.

ATG economist Milton Friedman:



ATG economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell:



Orphe Divounguy, an extremely bright young PHD economics student from the Univ of Southhampton:

[Nuurzhaelan]

I just re-read some of this. It seems that you edited while I was responding at some point, and I missed some of your added points. I will have to watch the videos tomorrow after work. No streaming media at work, though I can still post.

A video which BTW illustrates the wrong direction we've been heading in for the last decade, which includes Bush (like Obama, a big government drone.)

Definitely not the best decade in my lifetime, to be sure.

You mean the same Patriot Act that Obama just extended for 4 years?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_867851.html


Yes, that one. It should not be. Going to have to use the link and read about that tomorrow. I don't know why he extended that.

[Nuurzhaelan]

Hey Nuurz, you seem like a smart enough guy (though just a bit misinformed and with an obvious confirmation bias,) but you're ignoring my responses and coming up with several more questions for each one I answer. I can't tell if your first question about minimum wage is serious, or if you're just messing with me, but if it's the former, I suggest you watch one or more of these videos.

ATG economist Milton Friedman:



ATG economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell:




Orphe Divounguy, an extremely bright young PHD economics student from the Univ of Southhampton:

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. On the surface it sounds right, but the wages he is arguing for reduces one to underemployment. The argument made here is that an employee who is underemployed by several employers will have to work much longer, for less to earn enough to support himself. Doctor Divounguy is correct. Unemployment rates would go down, but so would the quality of life and morale...faster than they are now. The quality and dedication of the employee will be even worse for having to work more jobs just to live in an economy in which the current minimum wage will not support a single adult.

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