Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Why not $20, $30, or $50? Easy. Because those numbers would throw the system out of balance the other direction. Layoffs would slow new spending, which would lower production, which would create more layoffs. That's called deflation, and it ends in depression. The reason it's appropriate to raise the minimum now is that the system is out of balance the other way. Minimum has not kept up with productivity gains, and that is depressing spending, and shifting too much income to the highest brackets (0.5%). Doesn't matter whether you think it's appropriate or not, if you build a business based on a certain level of labor costs, but then that doubles, you get the same side effects. The same things happen when we get hit by high gas prices suddenly. Nobody is guaranteed success in business. Not every business idea works. But let me say this, many thousands and thousands of businesses figure out how to operate under the laws, regulations and labor rules we have in the US. When electric rates go up, or new safety regulations come out, or new insurance regulations, businesses have to adjust. We've had a minimum wage since 1938. It has risen numerous times. And clearly, most businesses figure how to adjust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Air Force Academy Honor Code QUOTE The bedrock of moral and character education at the United States Air Force Academy begins with a internalization of the cadet honor code. This code was created by cadets and is owned by cadets. They are responsible for maintaining the Code as well as for the process by which those who break it are assessed. The Code is based on a fundamental, positive principles of honesty, respect, fairness, and support. Understanding the CodeHonor Code: We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Honor Oath: We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, (so help me God). Spirit of the Code: Do the right thing and live honorably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The American Bar Association also promotes a Code of Ethics Quoting in part Compliance with the Rules, as with all law in an open society, depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon reinforcement by peer and public opinion and finally, when necessary, upon enforcement through disciplinary proceedings. The Rules do not, however, exhaust the moral and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer, for no worthwhile human activity can be completely defined by legal rules. The Rules simply provide a framework for the ethical practice of law. END Source: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html I am sure that if I visit the accounts professional organization, or the nurses, or the financial advisors association I will find similar moral codes in place covering their professional activity. There is nothing unusual about this for INDIVIDUALS working in society. In fact, one of the first things professional organizations DO is decide what is right and what is wrong behavior for their members. Here's a quote from the REALTOR association web site: The first code was approved in 1913 at the convention of the National Association of Real Estate Boards held in Winnipeg. The first Code of Ethics specifically prepared for members of The Canadian Real Estate Association was approved by members in 1959. The Code establishes a standard of conduct, which in many respects exceeds basic legal requirements. This standard ensures that the rights and interests of consumers of real estate services are protected. As a condition of membership, all REALTORS® agree to abide by the Code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Agreeing to abide by a "code" doesn't imply a thorough knowledge "of" said code. Which, then, would allow for amoral actions in breaking the code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 50 pages in... & haven't read one thing to convince me that the Fair Labor Standard Act should establish a $15 minimum wage. If a State wishes to raise it from current status... let the individual States (& the voters in their State) decide for themselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Fukryingoutloud...you can quote APPLICATIONS of amoral systems as long as you want. The SYSTEM remains amoral. Various applications may have a moral or honor code tacked on but they are not part of the system. Any number of capitalist enterprises have moral or honor codes. Sinse the system itself is amoral this makes sense. The same is true for other systems. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 50 pages in... & haven't read one thing to convince me that the Fair Labor Standard Act should establish a $15 minimum wage. If a State wishes to raise it from current status... let the individual States (& the voters in their State) decide for themselves. Either get on topic or butt out... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 It appears you'd like to see a kinder, gentler, world where everyone gave a $h!t about their fellow man. I wish you the utmost luck in changing global human behavior. As for the original question, NOPE, the national minimum wage should not be increased to $15 / hr. Abolish the ACA - now there is one that I'd personally like to see, but only because of how it affects me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Agreeing to abide by a "code" doesn't imply a thorough knowledge "of" said code. Which, then, would allow for amoral actions in breaking the code. In law, the principle is this: Ignorance is no excuse. Therefore, you break the law, you take the punishment. In professional ethics it is much the same. If you don't understand the code of your profession, you don't practice. If you practice, it assumes you know the code and ignorance is no defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Can't get anymore amoral than global warming. It is neither bad nor good...just is. Dave OR isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Sorry... for got the thread topic was bloviating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted November 18, 2015 Moderators Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) Hey Jeff....I got lost amongst the sea of crazy back and forth between you guys. Could you summarize your view on this? I've always enjoyed your perspectives over the years, but I'm finding it hard to find your views amidst all the posts. One question I've been thinking a lot about is the idea that scarcity demands a higher dollar amount. The age old supply and demand analogy. Is this just a fundamental concept, or is it only applicable to a capitalist economy (or other similar structures)? I understand the idea of supply and demand when it comes to goods and whatnot, but something just feels off when we're talking about people and their skillsets. I just haven't been able to put my finger on it - or is it really as simple as supply and demand and I shouldn't worry about it? I am completely comfortable with the idea that people will have different life styles, so the idea of different pay doesn't bother me at all. It just seems odd to me that scarcity of a skill itself is what demands the higher dollar amount. Perhaps this is a shortcoming of our educational system? If there were more CEO's that were really good at their job, then would their salary stay the same? Supply and Demand tells us that their pay should go down, right? Maybe we should be focusing on our efforts on training our workforce to have a more balanced set of skills? Is the capability of a CEO the product of nurture or nature? Mike, I think you present a great point/question, is compensation set strictly by the law of supply and demand in the US? It is in theory, but not in practical application depending on the type of job, industry, certification and educational requirements. I read Jeff's comments to your original post, and thought, as usual they were excellent. I just wanted to throw out another part of the equation when it comes to setting the price for labor. The reason why NFL players make what the market will bear is not because of supply and demand, it is collective bargaining. An individual, rarely, has enough bargaining power to demand "what the market will bear." The concept that a person has the option to either accept the position, or not, is really a fiction in the lower economic strata. The job for those people is the difference between being homeless, feeding their kids, etc. In a bad economy the demand for labor goes way down, and what jobs are available get flooded with applications. NFL players did not begin to receive pay indicative with their scarcity until the players began to organize and demand collective bargaining in 1968. The only reason they were able to get that going is because there was a competing league until 1970. Prior to 1968 players were not paid for training camp, and paid for preseason games, had to pay for their own equipment, and were stuck for life with the team that drafted. After many, many years and court battles, the NFL had to negotiate with them because they have the option to strike. Supply and demand just doesn't apply in a direct relationship like it does with a particular product on the market because the "need" for a job is entirely different then for a particular product. Edited November 18, 2015 by dwilawyer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Ethics and lawyering, now there's an oxymoron. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?" I fully expect it to be so. Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury? Same for those. I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare? Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral. Dave You expect the health care system to be amoral. That is, you expect there to be no "right or wrong behavior standards" within health care. That's the meaning of an amoral system. No one has described or sworn to right behavior over wrong behaviors. I've shown you the Hippocratic Oath, a very extensive moral code for doctors, and you seem to still not understand the meaning? Demonstration When I break a leg, I want my doctor to do what is best for my interests, not his own. He must select a behavior that puts my benefit above his own. By doing so, he is doing right. By not doing so, he is doing wrong. He has agreed as an oath taker to do the right thing, and not the wrong thing. I expect and rely on his moral behavior, or his following of the ethics of his profession. What's not to understand about that? Edited November 18, 2015 by jo56steph74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Establishing an "ethical code" of conduct for any profession is something that is done to establish a basic premise from which to operate. It does nothing to ensure that those within the profession will either know the "code", or operate ethically under it. Having recently completed 20 hours of real estate ethics training for license renewal, I can tell you that those test questions are quickly forgotten by agents. Think about this another way - there is no way the general populous could know all of the current laws that govern us. It comes down to you should know between right & wrong & negligence of the law offers no excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Back to topic - A $15 minimum wage, nationally instituted, will undoubtedly create more issues than it attempts to solve - regardless of any well meant intentions of such an implementation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Back to topic - A $15 minimum wage, nationally instituted, will undoubtedly create more issues than it attempts to solve - regardless of any well meant intentions of such an implementation. Don't need 50 pages for that. Truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Establishing an "ethical code" of conduct for any profession is something that is done to establish a basic premise from which to operate. It does nothing to ensure that those within the profession will either know the "code", or operate ethically under it. Having recently completed 20 hours of real estate ethics training for license renewal, I can tell you that those test questions are quickly forgotten by agents. Think about this another way - there is no way the general populous could know all of the current laws that govern us. It comes down to you should know between right & wrong & negligence of the law offers no excuse. All the real estate agents I know, and that's a reasonable number, take their ethics very seriously. But sure, I'd have no doubt that some you know don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare? Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral. Dave Any "system" is incapable in determining between right & wrong, so by definition, ALL systems must be amoral in nature. Maybe that explains why we set up these systems in the first place - to act - without being encumbered with "moral" decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzydog Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Lets try the ad absurdum argument... If the minimum wage is the solution to poverty, why stop at $15/hour....wouldn't everyone be even better off at $50/hour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.