Minimum Wage

WHAT??? I agree we should simplify our government, then you go right on to tell us you shouldn't. A simple government does not include food stamps and permanent welfare (that is what a voluntary tax is all about, CHARITIES). It doesn't include being a mommy and a daddy to the failures in life.

So which do you want, a simple government, or socialism, which is far from simple. I agree with simplifying government. The first simplification would bring all our people in the military home from overseas and disband 80% of it. I mean what are they protecting if we are being invaded from the south without any stopping or slowing of it? They are useless. That would cut our buget 25% immediately and fix our labor shortage so we could drive the illegal out. And then put the military on our border with orders to shoot to kill after sealing the Mexican border permanently.

 

No it is not. SS for those over 62/66 is a paid for service, but when we pay for others who have no contributed into the system, it is a welfare tax on those of us who did. Take away all the SSI bullcrap and leave it to a minimum of 62, SS would be solvent. IT is NOT when they put the leaches on. However, I could go that if you get disabled (truly disabled) as say 42 years of age, I would let you take a greatly reduced SS payment based on your input to the system and your life expectancy. If you do put into it, you should be able to percentage wise, draw from it if the world ends for your work history.

 

Well, the system is a little more like insurance than you propose.

And, if paying less SS to those unable to work (or work as much) puts them under the poverty level, then we just add from some other bucket.

 

That is what "charities" are for, because charities are voluntary taxation. And we can have a voluntary tax system that if you want to get into SS, you can, and if you don't, you don't. YOUR CHOICE. But don't expect forced payments when you reach 62-70. You don't get crap, and if you have failed to prepare for the inevitable, no government free lunch for you!!!

 

Well, the reason that doesn't work is that we don't let people die in the street.

You can find places that do, I'm reasonably sure. But, I doubt you're going to want to live there.

 

Maybe, in right wing special pleading. The Romans proved, Government can solve all problems, with Good management.

 

so what; the same can be said of any given market; yet, people lose money in the markets.

The point is, employment is at the will of either party.

 

Yes, it is, and that is how it should be. However the conditions are hardly equal; if you look at labor laws you see about 100% of the laws on the books protect employees from employers- none work the other way. The conditions vary too from the standpoint that the price for the labor is firm to the employee, but what the employee will provide in return is highly variable and the employer doesn't know if he has bought a pig in a poke at the time. And while the employer can terminate, he's still liable for the costs up to that point regardless of what benefit if any was received- so any bad choice in a hire is an expensive one. While the benefit of all this is clearly on the employee's side- it is always the employees who complain that conditions are unfair. In most markets these is recourse for both sides. In employment, that recourse is almost non-existent for the employer. The difficulties that come with employee-intense business are one of the prime reasons for automation- and not just in production. Even now, we are replacing even verbal tasks like customer support with digital agents, and as the technology gets better, you will have a hell of a time getting a live person on the phone for anything when you call a large company. Good people are continuing to rise in value; poor ones are falling in value, widening the gap.

When one hires, you do your best to make a good choice, but it is still a substantial gamble. When one invests in a stock, IF the person is a good researcher and skilled, it is not so much a gamble as it is a calculated risk. Some will argue that, but many investors don't understand the difference between calculating risk and a making a guess. I'd be tickled pink if hiring became as predictable as investing.

 

We allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Employment is at the will of either party in any at-will employment State. That is public policy for the benefit of Capitalists and their bottom line. Equal protection of the law means Labor could simply apply for unemployment compensation whenever they are naturally unemployed in our First World economy.

 

You are repeating yourself without answering past responses.

 

It would be so much better if only employees weren't actually human beings!

 

only Artificial persons should be taxed for what they actually produce.

 

NDA's.
Contractual agreements not to work for other employers in the same field for 18 months after you leave.

There are a few laws that protect the employer from the employee.

The bulk of them of the other way to be sure.

 

I haven't seen a response that there is any reason to address.

 

NDA's are not labor laws, they are contractual agreements between parties, usually because some proprietary information or benefit will become available to the prospective employee that could be used to disadvantage of the company. For example, developing a relationship with it's customers and their inside operations, then going to work for a competitor with it.

 

Yet you thought you had to repeat yourself!

 

True, but realize that your argument against freedom has been less than adequate.

It really is hard to make that case, I know.

 

Less than adequate for what?

I got my ideas out. I stand behind them.

 

They are labour laws.
The contracts are legally binding.

 

That's what you have to do when people don't pay attention. I made specific points; responses are like "drop dead in the streets".
I guess there is no need to repeat anything to a those who can't comprehend; we just keep hoping there are a few that still have functioning minds.

 

If you are going to propose solutions, you have to answer the full question.

If you leave people without a way to live, then they may well die.

Sorry if I emphasized that point at a level you couldn't handle.

 

Nope. A contract, for example to buy something, a lease or and NDA is a legal agreement. That is NOT a law, it does not apply to anybody without them agreed to the the specific document and terms of the document which may exist no where else. Laws are written, recorded, published and apply to everybody. Violation can bring a civil lawsuit for recourse, meaning recovery of damages for failure to honor the agreement in a contract, but it does not constitute a criminal act. A contract or NDA creates a obligation on those who sign it- but nobody else.

 

There are a number of laws as well as a body of court decisions that governs what may be in an NDA and what may not be in an NDA.

NDAs Trump has required of his staff are probably not legal.

 

You are the one that can't handle it.
Leave people without a way to live?
How the hell do you think people survived before welfare?

Yes, people who refuse to provide for themselves will die if they can't bring themselves to do so.
IF they get hungry enough- they usually will. Unless some idiot comes along and tells them their irresponsibility is not their fault, and someone else will fix their problems.
That seems to be the approach you favor; to promote the loss of self-respect, of dignity, of independence and of pride.

Those who can't for physical or other reasons we have always handled with charity- which is gifted money, not stolen by taxes and given to those who seek hand-outs.
Some think all people are equally valuable. I think you make yourself what you want to be. If you want more valuable- you will find motivation. If you don't, then you will do without.
Opportunity is everywhere, more today than ever. the only thing growing faster is the will to live like a parasite, sucking the life out of others so you don't have to do for yourself.

 

Of course, any legal document has to be written in a way that is not legally faulted in order to be valid in the event it goes to litigation.
That DOES NOT make it a law, it just makes the document legally supportable.

There are certain conditions of contract law that must be met in order for the contract to be legally binding- but that does not define the nature or words of the contract. Perhaps you have heard the phrase "quid pro quo". That means that a contract must define some contribution of value or service from both sides; it cannot be an agreement to pay for nothing. What the value is does not matter- for example many contracts say "for $1 and other good and valuable services" as compensation. That $1 is there to meet the Pro Quo, the "other good and valuable" phrase is there to prevent the agreement from being challenged on the basis of compensation of $1 being far less than the service is worth- while keeping the details private.

Hell, don't take my word for it; if the above is beyond your comprehension, call a lawyer.