American Wages, the Minimum Wage and Income Brackets

That in red above is an entirely personal opinion.

You seem to want to think that all governments are corrupt. And therefore useless?

Because you are intimating that some other form of governance is better?

Do show us what you mean in practical terms ...

 

That notion is a bit simplistic given the comparative LACK-OF-VOTER-TURNOUT that has been prevalent in American politics for quite some time:

Sixty percent is hardly a turnout to crow about.

Compared to other countries, the US voter turnout is kinda-sorta shameful. See for yourself from Pew Research here where the turnout is shown to be lackluster.

From the article:

What kind of Democracy is that? It is one of a situation in which the two-party system along with the voting manipulations of gerrymandering and the Electoral College dissuades people of their so-called "Responsibility to vote".

And not without good reason ...

 

Dear @LafayetteBis
I believe it is American freedom to exercise one's own religion that allows people to NOT depend so much on govt
and to focus on investing one's OWN resources and labor into creating programs and policies for one's own group.
Whether by political parties, religious or charitable organizations, schools or other local programs, by city, district or state.

What I believe would increase voter participation is Proportional Representation
by Party where populations organized by precinct could practice direct representation through local democratic process.

I would suggest reforming and expanding the Electoral College system
to operate councils with member reps from each Party represented per District.
If TX, CA and all states agree to divide Electoral College votes proportionally
by the votes per party, this would eliminate the reactionary push to abolish the Electoral College altogether
by reforming it to reflect the popular vote. To further give positive incentive to make this reform across all states,
I would recommend using these council of reps per party to implement a grand jury/hearing system,
similar to OSHA hearings, where district members can submit complaints of abuses or violations
of Constitutional laws, ethics, and process to their party reps to present to the council for review.
The councils could either set up assistance to resolve these issues, or recommend further action
to the appropriate level or office of govt, then follow up to make sure the complaint is resolved.

In particular, I believe citizens should have access to such assistance to demand separation of taxes on policies
that otherwise impose on people of conflicting beliefs, and reimbursement
for political abuses of govt that cost debts or damages from taxation without representation.

If votes for representatives automatically gave citizens standing to participate in govt,
regardless of beliefs, size of affiliated membership or which group holds the majority,
this would reward citizens instead of sending the message that their votes don't count.

 

I beg to differ. It seems you are confusing one's rights and one's duties in a constitutional democracy.

Btw, No Religion in America has a constitutional right of privilege as regards one's constitutional duties. Religion is a belief option, meaning one can believe in any religion they wish to adopt or none at all.

Democratic freedom is both described in our constitutional rights and practiced as an individual duty. (That is, according to the established rules.)

Yes, religion is free for anyone to pursue as expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But you are clearly confusing religious freedoms with the civil duties of a citizen.

Methinks ...

 

Of course all governments are corrupt. Read history - it is not subtle.

I did not say that government is useless.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."

USHistory.org, Common Sense The American Crisis The Rights of Man Age of Reason
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Smaller limited government is always the best government.

 

Yes, @LafayetteBis ideally religious moral/duty should be separate from Govt and legal protections.

However, what I've found is that Constitutionalism becomes a political religion,
while other party platforms and ideologies have become their own political religions as well.

For example, when people BELIEVE that "health care is a right" or "marriage is a right"
they are expressing a political belief, which collectively becomes a religion; whole parties
espousing or imposing their beliefs especially becomes like any other religious organization,
but with the added threat of imposing this THROUGH GOVT at the expense of other people's equal free choice of beliefs.

So to counteract this trend, I enforce the right of people to express and defend
their political beliefs equally as any other religious beliefs under Constitutional laws.

What I find is that in order to ensure equal protection of rights,
it ends up being a matter of people enforcing these laws directly ourselves in order to defend our rights under the law.
We end up acting as authority of govt, just to defend our own rights and freedom, this becomes necessary.
Because of the rampant abuse of party and govt that otherwise violates people's rights if we don't actively defend them!

 

Dear @Ddyad and @LafayetteBis
Given that ANY collective system gets abused and corrupted
whether religious organization, governmental, corporate business, nonprofit,
church or charity due to bureaucratic hierarchy that oppresses individual interests,

The importance I find is using each system's OWN laws and agreed to process
to CHECK against abuses and CORRECT problems and resolve GRIEVANCES.

With churches/Christianity, members use the SCRIPTURES and Scriptural
authority that members SHARE in order to rebuke and resolve trespasses.

With Govt/Constitutional issues, we the people are supposed to invoke
and enforce CONSTITUTIONAL laws, principles, ethics and process
to address, correct and prevent abuses, including resolving
grievances that may require restitution. I would recommend
pursuing reimbursement to taxpayers (even in the form of tax credits) by wrongdoers held
responsible to the costs charged to the public for abuses of govt authority and resources.

We should be able to do this by invoking authority by Constitutional laws
and establishing agreement on process, assessment of debts owed
to taxpayers, and settlement terms of reimbursements and credits.

 

Wow! Reimbursement! Meaning let's pity the consequence and not the instigation of crime.

No, milady, you are barking up the wrong trees. Crime Laws are nice, but they react to the problem without addressing its provocation. So high crime rates go on, and on, and on - ad nauseam!

Poverty in America is not societal in nature as much as it is economic. The result being that America puts people into prison at an Amazing Rate (see here), and Why? Because the poor are more prone to theft than the rich. (Wow! What a discovery!)

This is the result, here: International Crime Rates (per 100000 of population) - the highest of any developed nation!

I keep insisting on the Real Answer, and it is in America's acute Income Disparity. See that "honor" of the worst of any developed nation here:


It is far, far better to prevent crime by address the reasons it exists rather than reimbursing the victims. Let's address the former of those options, rather than the latter. Which is a much less expensive ...

 

Dear @LafayetteBis
Sorry we miscommunicated so badly.
Yes, I am talking about addressing the specific causes of each incident of abuse or violation
so that both the wrongdoers who owe for damages caused to others
as well as ALL circumstantial factors ARE addressed.

I don't see how else you could get anyone to agree to reimbursing costs
if you don't address and solve the problems together.

I believe a Restorative Justice approach would work better
to facilitate an effective process to reach a constructive solution.

And yes it would end up deterring and preventing causes of crimes and abuse
as an additional benefit to Restorative Justice.

 

HISTORY LESSONS

Call it whatever you like - I've seen plenty of exaggerations both Left and Right in this forum regarding "political religions".

Which is why it should be taught in High School history classes that for more than five hundred years most of the wars fought over religion were in Europe from the 16th century onward killing thousands upon thousands of people. Due to the division of the Christian church into two sects - Protestant and Catholic. (The reasons were even darker; about who dominated what revenues - but I wont go into them.)

People try to justify their "personal opinions" regarding life-style to something more elaborate - like basic-freedoms supposedly underscored in the Constitution.

The problem is quite simple: Those who wrote and adopted the Constitution lived two centuries ago. And they wanted dearly NOT TO REPEAT THE RELIGIOUS DIVISIONS THAT HAD HAPPENED IN EUROPE!

FAST FORWARD

Our lives have changed considerably in 200-years. What has not changed, however, is this resurgent notion that what is best for me in my tiny existence is State Laws! FOR WHICH I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE! Not Federal laws over which I have far, far less control whatsoever; except by the tiny representation that my state has (collectively with other states) in Congress!

But, boyz-n-girlz, that is the way a republican democracy should work. That is:
*What's "good for the goose may not be good for the gander - but what's good for both must be!"
*The market-economy is like a pie-chart with its dominant and lesser participants. But, it should never be a one-way street for a tiny-part of the population to make monstrously inequitable fortunes at the same time that far too many are living a life in abject poverty. That is not humanly acceptable!

Equitability of incomes - not equalness of incomes - is the goal we strive for but becomes very, very difficult whenever there is a controversy especially as regards the "rights" of some at the cost of the "indignities" perpetrated by others ...

 

CORE DEMOCRATIC VALUES

Or, if you like, what might be called a list of Core Democratic Values.

See the list here in pdf version.

PS: And I will make no excuses for the word "Democratic", which does not in the least mean they belong to the Democrat Party. These values, I submit, are universal.

 

Our complex laws and legal system now operate as an obstacle course for those seeking justice.
There is too much reliance on lawyers as opposed to randomly selected untampered juries.

 

The are a good number of "freedoms" on this planet. The US is only one of them. And whether it is "the best" of not is an extremely difficult controversy. After all, what are the "criteria for judgement"? No other developed democracy employs gerrymandering of the electoral landscape to the extent that the US does!

What we have today is an array of Political Tribes!

American mentalities must focus far less on "what's best for me" and far more on " what is best for the nation". Without our political tribes at state-level, we can survive. All they have accomplished - on both sides of the two-party divide - is profit from gerrymandering that is an unfair (and should be illegal) division of voting-patterns that allow them to survive in promoting their parties statewide and nationally.

Without uniformly competent national governance we all go down in flames. And, the killings happening in America are only skin-surface indicators of the mentality-rot below.

We have lost our sense of values ... which is primordial in any competently functioning democracy ...

NB: Core Democratic Values of american Constitutional Democracy (pdf).

 

The legal-system - that is, the application of law - is good enough. And regardless it will never please some.

The complexity of laws is a legal challenge in most countries. Often it is too far after the fact that harm is done. Less often, but worse, is that some laws are never passed. Like Gun Laws in the US that forbid arms of all kinds except hunting. Which given the plethora of guns available would likely shut down the private-arms business in America. (But who cares about that except for gun manufacturers?)

Any jury requires pleading to make obvious the facts. Call it whatever you like, but juries are necessary. And I would not care to have a jury consisting of lawyers! Europe used to employ priest to sit as a jury in matters concerning public officials. Because these were the only intelligent people at the time who could read&write.

I do not understand why lawyers are well-paid, except for the fact that they "protect" business managers (who are extremely well-paid) so not pay well a lawyer to defend corporate interests? That too is another aspect of American law that is appalling ...

 

Lawyers are paid well to pilot their clients through the legal maze lawyers have created.

 

Dear @LafayetteBis
Doesn't how long principles have lasted have the ability to go both ways?
If the laws of physics or gravity were written centuries ago, and last for centuries more,
are we going to dismiss them just on the basis they were written so long ago they must be outdated?

Isn't the criterion we use whether the principles is sustainable and universal or not?

For example, "free exercise of religion" is something all people demonstrate a natural
desire to defend as either freedom of choice, FREE WILL, civil liberties (as Libertarians call it), intellectual freedom of thought,
consent of the governed and "no taxation without representation," no compulsion in religion (as taught in Islam),
no discrimination by creed (as in more modern civil rights language).

Freedom of speech is another natural right that people naturally exercise and invoke by our own inherent NATURE as human beings.

Whatever you contest in terms of outdated imperfect manmade laws,
what I AM referring to are the UNIVERSAL laws UNDERNEATH that man did NOT invent.
We just came up with words and terms to write these down to make them written contracts and statutory laws.

Maybe you and I are talking about two different things when we bring up laws.

I'm not just talking about the manmade language,
but the universal principles underneath.

Similar to how laws of physics, gravity, energy do not depend on man's laws or imperfect expression of them.
The point is to convey the inherent existing laws, and man's words are the ways we develop to capture and communicate those.

 

Dear @LafayetteBis

Where I find America has advantages (and also historic responsibility)

1. Christianity can be practiced where it connects with people of all other tribes, beliefs, laws etc.
It's basically universal forgiveness so any errors or conflicts can be corrected between people
through RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. So when practiced in the universal spirit I believe is the
real message behind it, it reconciles with anyone under any other system. Any conflicts can
either be resolved or forgiven and worked around where Christian faith is practiced universally and inclusively

2. Constitutionalism can also be practiced where any other religion is "protected thereunder."
Because "free exercise of religion" and "equal protection of the laws" is built into it,
that means any person of any faith, belief or none at all is ideally guaranteed equal rights, freedoms and protections
under Constitutional laws and process.

3. And America has the distinction of being founded on BOTH cultural laws:
* The Laws and Authority in Christianity that CHECK the CHURCH against abuses of religious authority.
* The Laws and Authority in Constitutionalism that CHECK the STATE against abuses of political authority.

So in America, when we practice and invoke these laws and "due process" under
* Christianity this checks the CHURCH authority and under
* Constitutionalism this checks the STATE authority

So both Church and State can be governed by the people
when fully empowered with knowledge, application and authority of these laws.

America has BOTH in its foundations and cultural history and traditions,
and we bear the legacy and responsibility to ensure "Equal Justice for All"
using these laws of CHURCH and STATE to check themselves against abuse and error.

 

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

Interesting notion, but I don't see how that works when a given party seeks to forbid abortion (because of that party obeys church laws).

This is a hairy subject, I sense. But I do agree with this suggestion here: Theorizing Time in Abortion Law and Human Rights
excerpt:

The question remains nonetheless "When does human life begin?"

And there is no "religion on earth" that decides that question. It is a purely legal matter for each nation to decide, and without any interference of any given church or body other than that governmental.

Of course, when a political-party feels that it is in the right to observe a religious ethic to define "when" (which is never), that rule is overturned.

Because there is a point in time when "human rights" have no business being influenced by "church doctrine". And the problem to day is that there is a dilemma as regards (what I call) the sanctity of life. That is, when is life sacred and not to be interfered with by national/state law at birth and when not such that the death-penalty is legally administered by national/state law?

There appears, to me at least, to exist a contradiction-in-terms as regards the "sanctity of life" that a nation must definitively decide wholly and not state-by-state ...

 

That is where we beg to differ. Why? What is so key to the logical spirit of the question?

What is key is the fact that laws should be made by mankind in general - that is by the people upon whom the laws prevail.

Not some church ideology that was initiated thousands of years ago by an individual (whom we presume to be God).

All present human religions seem foundationally based upon a personality that happens to have been a human being a great long time ago. And if people want to believe that notion, that is their business and not that of the state. Meaning what?

Meaning that religious laws/beliefs should not interfere with the laws of the state (as they once did for a great long time in human history)! As regards "freedom" that was a core part of America's essence at the birth of the nation.

So, why should we today as a state or nation permit religious beliefs to interfere in a matter that is a question of public law ... ?

 

But we do.

Some religions want very much to interfere with the process of life that they believe begins at birth. But others non-religious believe begins only when the fetus finishes its period of gestation can it be called a "human being" and no longer a fetus ....

 

Low paying jobs allow people to have easier access into the work arena from which they can build a work history. I think it's important for high schoolers to work. I also think that someone having trouble finding work because they were fired from last job or other red flags on their record, should have an opportunity to start again.

If you force a "living wage" then you are hurting a very important segment.

My son started at Mc Ds at 16 and now at 17 is working a "living wage" at another company who was impressed by his work history and ethic. That is what capitalism is all about.

 

That aint necessarily so.

Low-paying jobs exist because the work cannot be done in Mexico or China. They are low-paying because their content is "low-technology orientated".

In the US, here is how they are distributed (note that their percentage of the workforce is color-graduated from 0.5 to 5.5%) from here:


And also this:

That statement remains to be proven!

If the MW is raised to life-support levels of $15/hour (effectively doubling the MW established in 2009!) it is unlikely that those who hire in that wage-sector would close shop. They would simply raise prices to accommodate costs - and consumers would adapt to the new cost-level as they usually do rather than go without! (No they wont buy new Cadillacs, but they will buy a new Chevy!)

For your edification, the definition of Capitalism is from here:

Where do you seen anything about the Minimum Wage in that definition? You can only infer that if the MW is a significant part of any economy, then it is highly predictive of general wage-levels.

Two caveats in the case of America today:
*The Minimum Wage (of $7.25/hour) amounts to $15.1K/year, whilst the Poverty Threshold wage recently was estimated at $24.4K for a family of four. That is, the MW is just 62% of the Federal Poverty Threshold wage!
*Moreover the MW only applies to about 5% of all workers in the US.

The appreciation of one's capacities, yes, are a key attribute to one's career - but not the Minimum Wage! Which should be a "floor" (based upon current prices) to wages in any rational economy. And in the US, that floor as it stands today was established at 2009-prices (of goods/services).

We are now TWO DECADES BEYOND THAT TIME ... !

 

It seems cruel to forbid hiring the lowest earning workers.

 

You arent really making an argument for the second two points. Just stating it like it's fact. Neither of those points are true. You can tell based on looking at the world as a whole and the amount of money people live well on.

You dont need money to be happy. Thats the biggest lie that the left bought into. Rather than trying to improve people's lives they are just trying to get 'poor' people in the west more money.

The poverty line world wide is 1200 dollars a year. So basically nobody other than the homeless in america are living in poverty.

 

it seems even more cruel to want to cut social services for the Poor.