Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The reality of a minimum wage
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3004680" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Nobody is talking about the "lap of luxury" (which is a moving target anyway). As it is, a substantial portion of the world--and especially Americans--already enjoys a standard of living that would have been unavailable even to heads of state as recently as a century ago.</p><p></p><p>I didn't say it was our job to bring them out, merely that refusing to trade with them--or refusing to allow them to use their competitive advantage--artificially maintains them in poverty when they could get out</p><p></p><p>Most of those conditions are the result of either governmental malfeasance or choices made by those individuals. Again, I'm not saying we should send them free money to actively raise their standard of living, merely that we not artificially stifle their attempt to raise themselves up. Look at the post immediately before mine (to which mine is obviously in reply):</p><p></p><p>Tristanjay's post doesn't propose keeping the money in the US, just making sure any trade only goes to countries with similar wage standards (as would be the effect of such tariffs).</p><p></p><p>Quite so...and that's precisely what they're doing: selling goods in a relatively free market, taking advantage of the resources they have. In this case, the resource they have in particular abundance. I was responding to a proposal that proposed artificially stripping them of the value of that resource--that is, a proposal that we abandon our free-market, capitalist principles, effectively saying "hey, this worked, but now that we've got ours, we're going to shut the rest of you out."</p><p></p><p>If y'all can't see where tristanjay's proposal to "have tariffs based on wages in the country" is the international equivalent of setting a minimum wage--which seems to be generally opposed in this thread--well, that's on you. For extra fun, see the Davis-Bacon Act, which effectively sets a minimum wage for government contractors totally independent of anything actually enacted by the constitutionally-prescribed process of the legislature. It's all the same thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3004680, member: 13624"] Nobody is talking about the "lap of luxury" (which is a moving target anyway). As it is, a substantial portion of the world--and especially Americans--already enjoys a standard of living that would have been unavailable even to heads of state as recently as a century ago. I didn't say it was our job to bring them out, merely that refusing to trade with them--or refusing to allow them to use their competitive advantage--artificially maintains them in poverty when they could get out Most of those conditions are the result of either governmental malfeasance or choices made by those individuals. Again, I'm not saying we should send them free money to actively raise their standard of living, merely that we not artificially stifle their attempt to raise themselves up. Look at the post immediately before mine (to which mine is obviously in reply): Tristanjay's post doesn't propose keeping the money in the US, just making sure any trade only goes to countries with similar wage standards (as would be the effect of such tariffs). Quite so...and that's precisely what they're doing: selling goods in a relatively free market, taking advantage of the resources they have. In this case, the resource they have in particular abundance. I was responding to a proposal that proposed artificially stripping them of the value of that resource--that is, a proposal that we abandon our free-market, capitalist principles, effectively saying "hey, this worked, but now that we've got ours, we're going to shut the rest of you out." If y'all can't see where tristanjay's proposal to "have tariffs based on wages in the country" is the international equivalent of setting a minimum wage--which seems to be generally opposed in this thread--well, that's on you. For extra fun, see the Davis-Bacon Act, which effectively sets a minimum wage for government contractors totally independent of anything actually enacted by the constitutionally-prescribed process of the legislature. It's all the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The reality of a minimum wage
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
