How Capitalists React to 'The Little Guy Beating Them by Their Own Rules'

[Audie]

It's interesting that people are offended by the notion that the wealthiest 10% are wealthier than the rest, but not that poor people are facing evictions and living on the streets because they can't afford the apartments they live in.

Who does that?

I live in a nice place.
Poor- people housing in
Hk is miserable.
Come fix it if you know what to do.

 

[Kooky]

Come fix it if you know what to do.

I would, if I had the money and the power to do so.

What about you?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's interesting that some are offended by the notion that the wealthiest 10% are wealthier than the rest, but not by the fact that many poor people are currently facing evictions and the prospect of living on the streets because they can't afford the apartments they live in.

Government could assist troubled renters.
With Democrats in control of Congress these days,
they could do it. This strikes me as the best path
to assist all concerned, eg, tenants, landlords,
lenders, local taxing authority, utility companies.

It reminds me of the mistaken approach to bailing
out lenders a few years ago. They should've assisted
the troubled borrowers instead. That would've served
both borrowers and lenders.

 

[sun rise]

The two tier American economy

I don't have a reference right now, but the increasing disparity sooner or later invites a reaction.

Hk is miserable.
Come fix it if you know what to do.

Right. Get rid of the oppressive dictatorial Chinese regime headed by Xi. Simple. Just add water.

Government could assist troubled renters.
With Democrats in control of Congress these days,
they could do it.

Hardly "control". The filibuster is still alive in the Senate. I am for what it's worth, torn about it because it's the class 2 edged sword. Now getting rid of it would be useful. A couple of years ago, it would have been terrible.

 

[Audie]

I don't have a reference right now, but the increasing disparity sooner or later invites a reaction.



Right. Get rid of the oppressive dictatorial Chinese regime headed by Xi. Simple. Just add water.



Hardly "control". The filibuster is still alive in the Senate. I am for what it's worth, torn about it because it's the class 2 edged sword. Now getting rid of it would be useful. A couple of years ago, it would have been terrible.

I DID NOT SAY HK is miserable.
Please don't misquote.

There has been a huge disparity in wealth here from day one, and only very tight border control
the while has kept us from being overwhelmed by those eager to give this better life a tty.

The housing situation has been bad for the poor ever since there was a HK.
Xi has nothing to do with that now, or them.

Do you have some idea to advance?

 

[Audie]

I would, if I had the money and the power to do so.

What about you?

Thats government level money.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hardly "control". The filibuster is still alive in the Senate. I am for what it's worth, torn about it because it's the class 2 edged sword. Now getting rid of it would be useful. A couple of years ago, it would have been terrible.

Dems have the majority in both houses of Congress.
Are they even trying to do as I suggest?

 

[Kooky]

Thats government level money.

You seemed to assume I would be able to do it by myself.

EDIT: If you're actually interested in what I would propose, then I refer you to my latest posts in the "Biden's Eviction" thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dems have the majority in both houses of Congress.
Are they even trying to do as I suggest?

You can't do it with Joe Manchin even without the filibuster and you can't remove the filibuster, because Joe Manchin don't want to remove it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't do it with Joe Manchin even without the filibuster and you can't remove the filibuster, because Joe Manchin don't want to remove it.

I've never been a fan of the filibuster.
Have the Dems tried to end it when they had the chance?
Could they now?
Do they even try?
How to Kill the Filibuster with Only 51 Votes

For Dems to blame they public policy agenda failures
on the Pubs time after time is unconvincing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've never been a fan of the filibuster.
Have the Dems tried to end it when they had the chance?
Could they now?
Do they even try?
How to Kill the Filibuster with Only 51 Votes

For Dems to blame they public policy agenda failures
on the Pubs time after time is unconvincing.

No, they can't kill it, because there are at least 2 Democrats, who won't do it.

 

[sun rise]

Dems have the majority in both houses of Congress.
Are they even trying to do as I suggest?

You write like an enraged extreme liberal who is upset that all the problems haven't had solutions proposed at this point (I'm really almost not joking).

You can see how little traction raising the minimum wage got in the Senate to see that some things are not easy to do.

 

[Audie]

You seemed to assume I would be able to do it by myself.

EDIT: If you're actually interested in what I would propose, then I refer you to my latest posts in the "Biden's Eviction" thread.

Its you assumed wrong. Its an intractable problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

You write like an enraged extreme liberal who is upset that all the problems haven't had solutions proposed at this point (I'm really almost not joking).

You can see how little traction raising the minimum wage got in the Senate to see that some things are not easy to do.

My perspective is neither liberal nor conservative, neither
Democrat nor Republican, neither moral nor immoral.
I just look at possibilities that interest me.

The minimum wage is a bad idea, especially considering
that for the fed to impose it, the Constitution must be
violated. Isn't trashing the law of the land something
we've tired of in the last 4 years?

 

[Heyo]

It's interesting that some are offended by the notion that the wealthiest 10% are wealthier than the rest, but not by the fact that many poor people are currently facing evictions and the prospect of living on the streets because they can't afford the apartments they live in.

The one is intricately linked to the other.
If the system wasn't rigged to syphon every bit of wealth off the 90%, there wouldn't be so many people facing evictions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My perspective is neither liberal nor conservative, neither
Democrat nor Republican, neither moral nor immoral.
I just look at possibilities that interest me.

The minimum wage is a bad idea, especially considering
that for the fed to impose it, the Constitution must be
violated. Isn't trashing the law of the land something
we've tired of in the last 4 years?

How do the minimum wage laws violate the Constitution?

And if it does why hasn't some business sued on that basis and won?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do the minimum wage laws violate the Constitution?

The Constitution gives the fed no authority to regulate wages.
The 10th Amendment says that powers not granted to it by the
Constitution are reserved for the states. So it's up to them to
regulate wages.
Even then, there's the risk that too high a min wage will increase
unemployment among workers of low value, particularly the
unskilled ones who need much training.
I was once one of those. (I had to be taught how to mop a floor.)

And if it does why hasn't some business sued on that basis and won?

Prolly not worth it to sue. Just because something is
unconstitutional doesn't mean the USSC won't find
it to be constitutional, eg, Kelo v New London, the
Petty Offense Doctrine

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Constitution gives the fed no authority to regulate wages.
The 10th Amendment says that powers not granted to it by the
Constitution are reserved for the states. So it's up to them to
regulate wages.
Even then, there's the risk that too high a min wage will increase
unemployment among workers of low value, particularly the
unskilled ones who need much training.
I was once one of those. (I had to be taught how to mop a floor.)

Prolly not worth it to sue. Just because something is
unconstitutional doesn't mean the USSC won't find
it to be constitutional, eg, Kelo v New London, the
Petty Offense Doctrine

As in all law cases it depends upon how one looks at it. Congress does have the power to regulate commerce and wages of workers is part of that regulation. I saw several articles pointing that out.

And the SCOTUS did rule on state minimum wages, which was a thing before there were federal ones. They were found to be constitutional. Interesting lawsuit. The outcome was said to have ended Roosevelt's threat to pack the court:

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

As in all law cases it depends upon how one looks at it. Congress does have the power to regulate commerce and wages of workers is part of that regulation. I saw several articles pointing that out.

Inter-state commerce....not intra-state commerce.
Regulating wages & prices throughout the land was
a Nixonesque unconstitutional seizure of power.

And the SCOTUS did rule on state minimum wages, which was a thing before there were federal ones. They were found to be constitutional.

This is because the state constitutions grant some powers
to the states....powers which the fed doesn't have.
The 10th Amendment says that whatever powers the
Constitution doesn't grant to the federal government are
reserved for the states.
The ability of the state to regulate wages within its borders
doesn't mean the fed has that same power within all states.

Interesting lawsuit. The outcome was said to have ended Roosevelt's threat to pack the court:

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish - Wikipedia

We should be wary of the federal government seizing more
power than allowed by the Constitution. People like it when
it raises the minimum wage, but the power to do something
for us is also the power to do something to us, eg, the
military draft (which violates the 13th Amendment, taking
private property to give to someone else (Kelo v New
London, which violated the 5th Amendment).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Inter-state commerce....not intra-state commerce.
Regulating wages & prices throughout the land was
a Nixonesque unconstitutional seizure of power.

This is because the state constitutions grant some powers
to the states....powers which the fed doesn't have.
The 10th Amendment says that whatever powers the
Constitution doesn't grant to the federal government are
reserved for the states.
The ability of the state to regulate wages within its borders
doesn't mean the fed has that same power within all states.

We should be wary of the federal government seizing more
power than allowed by the Constitution. People like it when
it raises the minimum wage, but the power to do something
for us is also the power to do something to us, eg, the
military draft (which violates the 13th Amendment, taking
private property to give to someone else (Kelo v New
London, which violated the 5th Amendment).

You read the Constitution one way. I read it another way.
The preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
...

You can combine these 2 to get a general draft.
The 13th is about slavery as such and the general draft can be considered different from slavery as it is for the common defense.
As for Kelo v New London you don't have absolute property rights, because the Government has the right to take your land in the end and do with it as it see fit. The 5th has nothing to do with Kelo v New London.

So now all I need to do as this is us playing with words, find a way to ground the minimum wage in the Constitution and its amendments. So here it is:
The 16th: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You now pay someone a wage. As long as that gives you an income, Congress can tax you and give these money to your employee. Even if you don't make a profit, you make a profit, because you gain some benefit by paying someone a wage.
Yes, I am playing with the Constitution and so are you.
I just admit that we both are subjective in how we interpret in the end the Preamble and the rest.