Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[oldtimer]

The same can be said for series 7 types, except I'm not sure about the drug and alcohol stipulations.  It still feels to a non-member as if small fry are the ones being culled.

[Jeff Matthews]

It still feels to a non-member as if small fry are the ones being culled.

 

Believe it or not, there are always those within the regulatory body who want to take down big fish.  For example, they went after John O'Quinn (a very famous Houston lawyer) very vigorously.  No matter what they tried, O'Quinn always won (or at least hung in there).  They went after his cohorts, too.  As I recall, O'Quinn checked himself into rehab to avoid a disbarment trial.  The trial was postponed while he was in-patient.  Ultimately, the trial occurred, and the jury found the State Bar did not make its case.  It was quite high-profile.  Benton Musslewhite and his son (I think Charles) were also defendants.  Charles turned state's evidence against O'Quinn and his own dad to save his butt.  It didn't work.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[oldtimer]

If I were regulatory I would be the same way.  I don't disbelieve you.  However look how hard it was and failed.  Small fry are easier.

[Jeff Matthews]

If I were regulatory I would be the same way.  I don't disbelieve you.  However look how hard it was and failed.  Small fry are easier.

 

True dat.  Billionaires can afford some pretty good attorneys.

[sheltie dave]

I'm disappointed that no one chose to respond to the Hostess bankruptcy situmatation,  and the conflagramadation that their executive board and the board of directors went through before they declared bankruptcy. I would think at least a few people would be bambozzlemadized and atrixaphibidized that a situation like this would be analyzabortified, as it really happened.

 

Guess real life isn't worth talking about, just positions.

[Travis In Austin]

it is shaped and exists in accordance with the public policy and moral code established and allowed at each of those levels.

What's the moral code established for Chase Bank, or Monsanto, or Massey Energy?

That's the point. They operate within a "code" or boundaries. Those boundries consist of the law, constitutional, statutory, regulatory and common. The political system determines what is legal, illegal, prohibited, allowable or otherwise. It establishes the "morals" or "core values" under which the companies or individuals operate.

The law doesn't match "morals" because morals are not universally agreed upon.

The easiest example to refer to is the economy we started with was not capitalism, but a slave economy. I would hope there would be universal agreement today that slavery is immoral, both then and now, but of course not everyone agreed about that back then.

Slavery was of course abolished, but it took another 100 years, at least, to be at a point where the law was applied somewhat equally to all.

The economy has transformed numerous times since then. Public policy, established by law is what causes those shifts. The biggest example of that was whether there should be a National Bank.

You continue to say they have morals, but unless they can be seen, or more literally read, they don't exist. I actually posted the full text of the Hippocratic oath, the military oath, and several others. A moral code is not a notion, it's written down for all to see.

Somehow, we're not communicating. I have never seen a moral code for capitalism. I've never seen a moral code in a corporate prospectus, because they're is no moral code in capitalism.

Please, compare your doctor to Monsanto or Chase to see what I mean. I mean a literal Code of Ethics.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Professions have codes of ethics, it is one of the things that distinguishes them from other occupations. They are distinguishable from oaths. Some codes are entirely voluntarily, others, such as in law, medicine, nursing, are set out as regulations under licensing boards, the violations of which can result in suspension or revocation of the license.

Violation of an oath of office or professional oath is rarely actionable. It is a violation of a ethical obligation under law (professional rules of etics) that results in punitive action.

Nixon wasn't impeached for violating his oath of office, it was for violations of law.

Economic systems don't have codes of ethics, although I suppose it would be possible to do so. Require anyone pulling a business license to swear some type of oath.

It is the components of an economic system which are regulated and subject to law.

What I am not u derstanding is what would the code of ethics say for capitalists?

Swear to follow the Constitution of the US and abide by the laws of the US? They are already required to do that.

Maybe it would contain something like "pay your employees a decent wage? Everyone might even agree with that (contractors with the US Govt. are in fact required to). But a violation of that code of ethics coild not result in punitive action, it would be unconstitutional.

Then you have the problem of who writes the list of ethics? What's in, whats out.

The fact of the matter is that if a legislative body, local, state or federal sees something in the economic system that it perceives as wrong/improper/immoral it simply passes a law prohibiting the conduct. Like slavery, child labor, unsafe drugs/supplements, unfair competition, false advertising, deceptive trade practices, etc. That isnthe reactionary "stick" approach.

They can also encourage conduct, the carrot approach. Grants, incentives, tax breaks, deductions, capital investment, etc.

Personally i would rather have a pack of trial lawyers out there making sure that corporations are acting as good citizens as opposed to requiring them to take oaths.

[Woofers and Tweeters]

I'm disappointed that no one chose to respond to the Hostess bankruptcy situmatation,  and the conflagramadation that their executive board and the board of directors went through before they declared bankruptcy. I would think at least a few people would be bambozzlemadized and atrixaphibidized that a situation like this would be analyzabortified, as it really happened.

 

Guess real life isn't worth talking about, just positions.

 

I responded 

[Mallette]

You left out books, if of course as Stew would say, you were showing off. In some places there was a library.

 

Yes.  A few other things.  Penny dreadfuls, magazines, ice cream and treats.  But really not much.  I noted this as in my own early life I've calculated the inflation and it went much farther than the simple change would infer.  I paid 200.00 for my first Fraziers.  Serious money at the time and a purchase even today I'd think about.  I could have bought a running car for that at the time.

 

Pure inflation doesn't tell the whole story, not by a long shot.

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

I paid 200.00 for my first Fraziers.  Serious money at the time and a purchase even today I'd think about.  I could have bought a running car for that at the time.

 

LOL.  I can imagine so.  My first Klipsch purchase was back in '87 or so. Used Cornwalls for $700.  Back then, that would have bought a running car.  A real junker that isn't too pretty, but it got you around.

[Jim Naseum]

Does anyone believe in usury? In exploitive debt? Deceptive, yet legal advertising? Apparently, this makes no impression on people in the general public.

In the financial crisis, which destroyed a trillion dollars of wealth in the middle and low classes, "the letter of the law" was followed, but deceptive unethical practices tricked home mortgage borrowers on the front end, and then deceptive selling of risky derivatives tricked pension managers at the back end. There were some failures to follow the law, which were not prosecuted, and innumerable moral failures which in fact were rewarded with bailouts and bonuses.

There was a complete breakdown in morality at the nations financial institutions. "The law" was satisfied, the damage was massive to the general society. It was an ethical breakdown like we've never seen. Hundreds of articles and books have been written on the moral breakdown. I don't imagine it's the kind of reading anyone here has come across, based on the incredulity expressed that anyone should even be concerned with morals in the economy.

For those with an interest, the financial crisis is a good place to begin studying the need for a moral change in the economy. For the free marketeers, carry-on.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[oldtimer]

Dave (Sheltie), some of us have lived through it as an employee.  You are right.  No one not involved cares about it, or even really understands or believes the story.  Those that have then later just get called whatever labels have been used in this thread already.  You know, why don't they find something else or start their own businesses or whatever else they want to call as a character flaw.  Obviously someone who has been screwed by a company should then have an incentive to start their own company so they are the ones doing the screwing right?  Some would say it is a lifestyle choice, others may say it is more of a moral choice.  Ultimately it boils down to who cares from either.  One can only care about their own and act accordingly given their willingness to do whatever it may be.

Edited November 19, 2015 by oldtimer

[Mallette]

I'd like to see a requirement for all corporate charters to contain some nominal moral standards in exchange for the public granting the privilege of a corporate charter.

 

Seriously?  What standard?  Sharia?  Varian Virtues and Vices?  Mormons?  Roman?  Theravada?

 

What a can of worms.  If you can get any group of people to settle on what is "moral" you can have peace in the middle east.  I am not holding my breath, my friend. 

 

Best settle for amoral law and let the market determine the rest. 

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Does anyone believe in usury? In exploitive debt? Deceptive, yet legal advertising? Apparently, this makes no impression on people in the general public.

In the financial crisis, which destroyed a trillion dollars of wealth in the middle and low classes, "the letter of the law" was followed, but deceptive unethical practices tricked home mortgage borrowers on the front end, and then deceptive selling of risky derivatives tricked pension managers at the back end. There were some failures to follow the law, which were not prosecuted, and innumerable moral failures which in fact were rewarded with bailouts and bonuses.

There was a complete breakdown in morality at the nations financial institutions. "The law" was satisfied, the damage was massive to the general society. It was an ethical breakdown like we've never seen. Hundreds of articles and books have been written on the moral breakdown. I don't imagine it's the kind of reading anyone here has come across, based on the incredulity expressed that anyone should even be concerned with morals in the economy.

For those with an interest, the financial crisis is a good place to begin studying the need for a moral change in the economy. For the free marketeers, carry-on.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Not at all correct.  Laws were broken.  Fraudulent credit ratings on sub-prime loans.  Betting against the securities one sells as A+.  All these sorts of things were against the law, not some moral code.

[oldtimer]

Betting against the securities one sells as A+.

 

That was a beauty wasn't it?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

I'd like to see a requirement for all corporate charters to contain some nominal moral standards in exchange for the public granting the privilege of a corporate charter.

 

Seriously?  What standard?  Sharia?  Varian Virtues and Vices?  Mormons?  Roman?  Theravada?

 

What a can of worms.  If you can get any group of people to settle on what is "moral" you can have peace in the middle east.  I am not holding my breath, my friend. 

 

Best settle for amoral law and let the market determine the rest. 

 

Dave

 

 

The more basic the moral virtue, the easier it is to get consensus.  Most of us agree we should not murder.  It's easy to get that law passed.  However, when it comes time to talk about what disclosures Big Pharma should make to consumers of its products, debate can go on and on.  The law reflects a basic standard.

[Mallette]

LOL. I can imagine so. My first Klipsch purchase was back in '87 or so. Used Cornwalls for $700. Back then, that would have bought a running car. A real junker that isn't too pretty, but it got you around.

 

And you are younger than I.  No way anyone much younger can really see what 10 bucks was worth in 1965 by an inflation calculator.  You had to BE THERE and spend it.  I would do a week on that at the time.  Couple of bucks for gas, few meals out, pack a day of smokes at 30 cents per, 50 cent quart of beer.  It went for a while...

 

So, there is no way I can really comprehend just using the calculator what 5.00 a day was like in 1914 without a serious study of the price of rent, groceries, and such.  Probably a lot farther than we think. 

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

 

LOL. I can imagine so. My first Klipsch purchase was back in '87 or so. Used Cornwalls for $700. Back then, that would have bought a running car. A real junker that isn't too pretty, but it got you around.

 

And you are younger than I.  No way anyone much younger can really see what 10 bucks was worth in 1965 by an inflation calculator.  You had to BE THERE and spend it.  I would do a week on that at the time.  Couple of bucks for gas, few meals out, pack a day of smokes at 30 cents per, 50 cent quart of beer.  It went for a while...

 

So, there is no way I can really comprehend just using the calculator what 5.00 a day was like in 1914 without a serious study of the price of rent, groceries, and such.  Probably a lot farther than we think. 

 

Dave

 

 

Yeah.  I go back to a dime for a Snickers bar, plus a penny tax.  Something like 15 cents for a bottle of coke in a vending machine, but the bottle was returnable for a nickel.  We would trample down ditches to collect bottles to return them so we could buy gum, chewing tobacco (occasionally) and just a few years later... video games!

[vindeville]

I work for a smallish company and I dont see how we can lump bigger wealthier companies in the same conversation regarding minimum wage at $15. I have several technicians that work for me in the $14-$20 range based on time in the department. I hire from within our company 99% of the time, People apply and are chosen based on attendance, work ethic and abilities etc... They primarily come from the production team of mostly young folks hired to run a line and basically watch over their machine. Ther job is important but how can we start them out at $15 without a drastic pay scale adjustment to the more technical jobs as well as foreman and supervisors. Certainly morale will suffer within my team and others based on percieved lack of regard for work knowledge, skills and dedication to move forward in the company. Incentive may suffer for people to move up into more challenging jobs. How do people ramain motivated and how does a not so big company keep things equitible and morale manageable. As I said in an earlier post a failed buisiness employs no man. Everything we have done through lean principals, people taking ownership and pride in the company, reward through opportunity in edjucation and promotion for hard work and dedication will be comprimised by such a huge minimum wage jump even if its over 3-4 years. There are many more things to consider here for people to be happy at their place of work besides starting pay. A sense of belonging and opportunity in a healthy work environment among others. a modest wage hike may be in line but we cant just hand things to people to walk in the door. Larger companies may have the resources and money to deal with a $15 min wage but i would say ones like mine and smaller will struggle and possible faulter from it particularly in this economy. No $15 minimum wage please. No need to respond to this telling me why im wrong, this is all just my opinion based on my experiences and work within a company structure. I do not spend my time studying buisiness, social and political philosophy or feel a need set others straight through stubourn debate and posturing. I focus on my job, my family, paying attention and voting my conscience and good tunes.

Edited November 19, 2015 by vindeville

[Jeff Matthews]

I do not spend my time studying buisiness, social and political philosophy or feel a need set others straight through stubourn debate and posturing. I focus on my job, my family, paying attention and voting my conscience and good tunes.

 

Well, there's your problem, right there!     

[oldtimer]

 

I do not spend my time studying buisiness, social and political philosophy or feel a need set others straight through stubourn debate and posturing. I focus on my job, my family, paying attention and voting my conscience and good tunes.

 

Well, there's your problem, right there!     

 

Sad, innit?