Lots of anger over pennies
Gramps
In my opinion, it’s much more reasonable with honest interpretation of the Constitution to opine that a FMW is unconstitutional and any decision about a minimum wage is by authority of the 10th amendment of our Bill Of Rights the power of State government that’s closer to the people whereby any negative or positive consequences thereof a MW would more readily be dealt with by the people at the polls. A FMW mandates no State can reject a MW. That’s central “socialist” government, only promoted by socialist.
The beauty of our Bill Of Rights and the 10th amendment in particular is that if loyally observed, what you “suppose” in that paragraph would be apparently obvious in a State by State laboratory as intended by the founders.I would suppose if we should ever attempt to attain an EXCESSIVE minimum rate in gradual incremental stages, we’d after some incremental step encounter little or no economic benefit due to the last rate increase. This is a theoretical scenario; never has any nation’s economy suffered due to the nation’s excessive minimum or median wage rate.
All of that should be dealt with by State government in accordance with the 10th amendment to our Constitution, then you’d actually have some real evidence of the negative or positive consequences of the MW. Also businesses and the people could vote with their feet and locate where they found the best conditions for their personal and business economy.When there’s no perceivable benefit due to the last increase of the FMW rate, we should logically cease increasing that rate beyond increases to retain its purchasing power. The simplest manner of retaining the rate’s purchasing power would be to adjust it annually to be kept abreast with a price-cost index number.
The question should not be an eventual finite FMW rate, but rather why are we not increasing the rate’s purchasing power until further increases would not be net beneficial to our economy?
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
Lots of anger over pennies
Gramps
Who would expect you to define my anger being actually in opposition to BIG socialist central government and it's unconstitutional quest to corrupt every aspect of my country? Surely not I!
The minimum wage power belongs to the States respectively, or to the people and not the corrupt bastards in Washington D.C..
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
The "height of irrelevance" is actually citizens too lazy and too apathetic and too partisan brainwashed to read and honestly accept the constitutional rule of law and serve it instead of the BIG government bastards and lawyers that corrupt it and serving their own willful stupidity. Those are irrelevant to the preservation of liberty.
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
Right no conservatards challenged the law successfully
But Barney fife robo knows better
Thanks for the comedy
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
Robo, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate prevents “spoilers” of our national economy. The law permits states to increase the minimum wage permitted under their jurisdictions but prohibits a state from undermining our nation's or other states’economies by tolerating a lesser than the federal minimum rate within their own jurisdictions.
It does reduce the incidences and extents of poverty within the USA but its ability to do so is limited by the rates purchasing power.
Our U.S. dollar has variable purchasing power and that’s why I’m among the proponents for modifying the federal law to retain the FMW rate’s purchasing power. The purchasing powers of Social Security retirement benefits are retained by pegging them to a cost-price index number. That method has been successful and it’s simple.
I understand your contention that the federal statute establishing a FMW rate is unconstitutional. That argument has been tested by various cases that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court where the FMW rate itself was always upheld.
I hope and believe that a U.S. Congress with or without the president’s concurrence, will never eliminate the FMW rate. There are two other methods by which the FMW rate could be eliminated; the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse their prior decisions regarding the minimum rate or the states could amend the constitution to eliminate the FMW rate. I believe that a constitutional amendment is the least feasible method.
The FMW rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty within the USA more than otherwise. Its ability to do so is limited by the rate’s purchasing power.
Our U.S. dollar has variable purchasing power and that’s why I’m among the proponents for modifying the federal law to retain the FMW rate’s purchasing power. The purchasing powers of Social Security retirement benefits are retained by pegging them to a cost-price index number. That method has been successful and it’s simple.
I believe that the FMW rate will prevail and inevitably it will be augmented with legislation to annually monitor (and when necessary) update the rate in order to retain the FMW rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
Bookmarks