Minimum Wage of $15

[B.H.]

I laugh at your son's joke.

I'll tell you all a story that will scare you, and since it's almost Halloween we need a good story. Several years ago I was actually a public school teacher. Yes, BH taught school for a little while. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what will.

I never took a single course in college towards teacher certification, not one, nada. My father was a teacher for many years. When I first got hired on as a teacher the district put me in their certification program. They gave us a state certification test from two or three years earlier just to see what we people in the program would score right off and see what we needed to focus on to pass the current test later. I scored a 79 and that is just from listening to my dad and the other two teachers in his department talk shop. I would ride the bus to his school at the end of the day and ride home with him when he got off. You hear a lot of things being the child of a teacher. So much for credentials there.

Another story. I did a years worth of grad school. At most we may have had ten books to read per course over a semester. People were skimming through their books, doing a one page report, and giving a one minute synopsis on their book. We all took notes regarding what the others said and these notes were regurgitated onto paper and called the term paper. I haven't taken a college class in twenty years but still read voraciously. If I get interested in a subject I'll read up to 50 or 60 or more books on it. And I know about author reviews, books reviews, reference checking, and so forth. I have a neighbor who tried to get into an argument with me about something to do with the early days of socialism and supposed early socialist support for abortion on demand. He claimed the early socialists were pro choice and I said that wasn't necessarily true. Bebel was against it He basically told me I should have gone to grad school because I didn't know what I was talking about. He was in his second year teaching history out at a college and thought he knew it all. I told him to come into my house and let me show him something. He comes in and sees walls of just books in several rooms. I pull out a file cabinet a file listing the books I read on socialism and counted them---it came to like 82. Then I pulled one of these books off the shelf and showed him the sources I was using. Sure enough August Bebel was against abortion on demand. I showed him a couple of other things about it too. I told him I went to grad school for a year and I know I knew more than he did because I knew what and how much he studied. He was like,

[B.H.]

Part of the reasons for the licensing is revenue generation on the state and local level. The other part is regulating professionals which I have no problem with. I am also a CPA and I don't want just anyone to be able to hold them-self out as an accounting professional. Same for physicians. I do think that in some cases regulating the "professional" aspect has been taken a little too far.

[/quote]

I'd say part of it too is to create artifical scarcity and therefore jack wages of those in such professions up more than they otherwise would be.

I know years ago you could read law, apprentice with a willing attorney and then take the bar exam. If you passed you were recognized as a lawyer. What is so difficult about being a CPA we could not let people self learn and then take a test?

I certainly do not mind there being standards. I do question why someone who self studied and then could pass the exams for entry to a profession should not be able to.

[teresa]

Revenue for what?

In my state, state revenue comes from income taxes, property taxes, franchise taxes, sales and use tax, meals and lodging, and more.

This revenue is used for:
Health Care 36%
Education 19%
Transportation 11%
Welfare 10%
Protection 6%
Pensions 6%
General government 4%
Defense 0%
Other 6%

[gordie91]

Revenue for what?

In my state, state revenue comes from income taxes, property taxes, franchise taxes, sales and use tax, meals and lodging, and more.

This revenue is used for:
Health Care 36%
Education 19%
Transportation 11%
Welfare 10%
Protection 6%
Pensions 6%
General government 4%
Defense 0%
Other 6%

WoW! Over 3/4 of the expenses are directly related to redistribution of wealth, the top four on the list which use to be the responsibility of the individual to take care of on their own. Imagine how well a government could be run if all it had to do was focus on protecting the citizens and the other 10% such as law courts and police.

Same as my state in regards to property tax, I may have paid the mortgage off but I do not own my property and never will as long as the government has that many expenses to attend to.

[KLP]

Gordie, you keep talking like this and you will get labelled a Libertarian or worse...Constitutionalist. And then it is down hill from there.

[teresa]

Imagine how well a government could be run if all it had to do was focus on protecting the citizens and the other 10% such as law courts and police.

First, it seems to me that we can simplify government at some levels, but that doesn't eliminate the needs of the citizens. What it does is shift the governance of these needs to the local level. In some cases that might be better, but not always.

Secondly, I am not sure how much we could simplify government at the local level. It seems to me that there are many areas that cannot be simply dismissed, such as oversight of clean water source and adequate sewage, local road maintenance, planning and development. Then there are education concerns like maximum teacher/student ratios, salaries, pensions, health insurance, curriculum oversight, maintenance of schools, school lunches, and transportation of pupils.

A third point to consider is that if all levels of government washed their hands of welfare (such as step-up programs that help people get trained and become self-supporting) and health care (for those who would not otherwise be able to afford it), that doesn't mean those needs would go away. It would look like the government is saving money for its citizens, but that would be an illusion. There is a hidden cost.

Having individuals and/or families living without adequate food, shelter,and health care, and no way to improve their lot, results in a "redistribution of wealth" anyway. Desperate people will panhandle, break into unoccupied buildings, steal, sell drugs, resulting in loss of safety and quality of life for the community as a whole, and discouraging visitors. Children will likely grow up feeling hopeless and helpless, some will choose to provide for themselves outside the law. Prisons are a place where the "redistribution of wealth" takes place, with the taxpayer paying to shelter, feed, and provide health care for those unable to make it in society. Not to mention the emotional cost to heartbroken families.

[gordie91]

Imagine how well a government could be run if all it had to do was focus on protecting the citizens and the other 10% such as law courts and police.

First, it seems to me that we can simplify government at some levels...to heartbroken families.

All of those points require force to be used in order to implement programs that all of those points assume only the government can do. Why? There is a false narrative that implies, if the government doesn't take care of the less fortunate (by forcing the fortunate to pay) then those underprivileged will have no choice but to beg, steal or engage in "dishonest" activities like selling illicit drugs or some other nefarious activity. Why is that the case in our age but not the case say 200 years ago? This is not a discussion about the virtues of charity but the reality of this world and that force, physical or by law, is wrong and should not be tolerated in a rights respecting society.

So when people demand others to do something that they would not otherwise do because it goes against their judgement, such as an artificial/mandatory wage requirements, in opposition to supply and demand there are consequences. Real live consequences.

Why must I be compelled to pay for an unknown child's education, healthcare, shelter or any other amenity by a government that can use the force of law to extract payment or else I will be penalized by the force of law. Just because it is compassionate for an individual to do works of charity, of which I believe they have every right to freely choose, does not necessarily make it better if a government forces the citizens to be compassionate with taxes? Now, only government can decide who is deserving of charity by picking who receives tax credits, housing assistance or certain medical procedures all at the whims of the current party in power.

Suppose there is a very sick man in my neighborhood that is poor and unable to pay for a potentially life saving medical procedure. I being the compassionate neighbor that I am, go into my safe pull out my loaded revolver and directly go to all my neighbors and tell them "our neighbor is sick and needs your help, I am here to collect money so that he can receive life saving medical attention. If you do not pay me a fair amount of money to help this man, then I will point this gun at your head and ask you once more to pay the fair amount." Now, how is that any different than the politician who pleads with the people that because of some great "societal need" we need to implement a program to help and will need everyone to pay more in taxes. Of course if you fail to pay those taxes, you will be subject to the enforcement portion of the law. Which form of force is the more moral. Physical force at the point of a gun or the force of law?

They both require a person to do something that they may not otherwise do but because of the force either by a brute or the force of a all knowing and compassionate leader/politician they are forced to act. Both acts are immoral.

[gordie91]

By the way in a rights respecting society people recognize that individuals have a right to their own life - right to pursue what makes them happy - a right to property/keep what they earn and dispose of it as they rationally see fit to do so. In short, a person should rationally be self-interested, not force others through coercion or physical force and trade value for value in their interpersonal dealing.

[teresa]

Gordie

The illustration you used makes your point clear. How do you feel about taxes imposed by the government which are used to fund the military-industrial complex? Do you regard that as immoral as well? I am seeking to more fully understand your point of view.

There is a lot for me to consider in your post, but to keep things manageable for myself, I will respond in tidbits.

There is a false narrative that implies, if the government doesn't take care of the less fortunate (by forcing the fortunate to pay) then those underprivileged will have no choice but to beg, steal or engage in "dishonest" activities like selling illicit drugs or some other nefarious activity. Why is that the case in our age but not the case say 200 years ago?

I was making a different point than the one you outlined above. I am not arguing that we need "big government" to redistribute wealth. I am simply saying that the needs don't go away if we refuse to address them, and desperate people will do whatever they can to survive.

I am saying that from a practical perspective, we cannot avoid a redistribution of wealth, unless (belated thought) we are prepared to hang people who steal food, as they did in 18th century England. In times past, the redistribution was accomplished through riots by the poor, such as during the French Revolution (1789), and the Russian Revolution (1917). Now it seems like the redistribution occurs ineffectively at the prison level if we do not intervene earlier with any needed social services, housing subsidies, food vouchers, affordable and effective education, and so on. So for me it is a given that there will be an unavoidable redistribution of wealth, the only question is, when and how will it happen?

[agricola]

Well in past years those people unfortunate enough to be injured or ill generally just quietly died off, thus saving society untold amounts of money.

I should not have to rely on the 'kindness of strangers' for sheer survival if I am unable to provide alone. I should be able to rely instead of the social safety net which assists ALL citizens who need it, instead of having to start a GoFundMe page and hope I look cute enough and desperate enough to garner sufficient funds so I don't die or my children don't starve to death.

I prefer, in fact, to live in a society that DOES actively provide a basic level of care, a basic level of available education, a basic level of human services (including roads and bridges) and things like a postal service that doesn't serve ONLY large wealthy cities and ignores small, rural ones.