Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

The Progressive Revolution: From Democratic to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Business close all the time. This is just an excuse to complain.

You have to be joking.   

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bobref said:

It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature. Or, in this case, market forces.

But, but doesn't the state always know what an individuals labor is worth on a hourly basis?  Are they not the experts?  

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

But, but doesn't the state always know what an individuals labor is worth on a hourly basis?  Are they not the experts?  

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Yes it does.  Here is more:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-york-city’s-15-minimum-wage-now-officially-disaster-71761

Quote

New York City’s $15 minimum wage, which began to take effect Dec. 31, 2018, was meant to bolster earnings and quality of life, but for a lot of residents, it’s doing the opposite.

Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation in 2016 to increase the New York York State’s minimum wage to $15.00/hr. The lowest minimum wage in NY at the time was $9.60. NYC’s “big employers” (11 or more employees) were the first to be forced to increase minimum wage pay toward the end of 2018. The rest of NYC’s smaller-scale businesses won’t have to pay up until December of 2019, according to data on Cuomo’s website.

Cuomo claims to have created the bill with “the needs of workers and businesses alike” in mind, but a lot of business owners in the boroughs beg to differ. They say the extra money comes with an unforeseen cost: higher good prices, fewer working hours and layoffs.

“Many people working in the restaurant industry wanted to work overtime hours, but due to the increase, many restaurants have cut back or totally eliminated any overtime work,” Andrew Riggie, executive director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, told Fox News. “There’s only so much consumers are willing to pay for a burger or a bowl of pasta.”

Roughly 77 percent of NYC restaurants have slashed employee hours. Thirty-six percent said they had to layoff employees and 90 percent had to increase prices following the minimum wage hike, according to a NYC Hospitality Alliance survey taken just one month after the bill took effect.

Only about 4 percent of survey respondents indicated that none of the above changes took place in their restaurants.

...

So according to logic from the likes of Dante only those 4 percent of survey respondents truly are worthy of staying in business.  If you can't continue to grow your business,  keep prices the same, and keep all your current employees even under these draconian wage hike laws you deserve to fail.

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yes it does.  Here is more:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-york-city’s-15-minimum-wage-now-officially-disaster-71761

So according to logic from the likes of Dante only those 4 percent of survey respondents truly are worthy of staying in business.  If you can't continue to grow your business,  keep prices the same, and keep all your current employees even under these draconian wage hike laws you deserve to fail.

Pretty much.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

Pretty much.

Pretty much the expected response you would get from a socialist.

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elitist Liberals/Progressives/Commies

.......gotta love em.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati: Fifth Third Bancorp to Raise Minimum Hourly Wage to $18

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fifth-third-bancorp-raise-minimum-130000513.html

 

Will this move by this socialistic Company trigger bank failures across America because those firms simply can't compete?

If you don’t see the difference between a private employer deciding that its employees, in its specific business, are productive enough to warrant an increase in wages vs. government mandating an across the board wage increase in all employers in all types of businesses, regardless of productivity or profit margin, there’s really no hope for you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Bobref said:

If you don’t see the difference between a private employer deciding that its employees, in its specific business, are productive enough to warrant an increase in wages vs. government mandating an across the board wage increase in all employers in all types of businesses, regardless of productivity or profit margin, there’s really no hope for you.

You completely missed my point due to your tunnel vision, but thanks for playing. It's the free market at work, and was a legitimate question. Which you didn't answer. 

Edited by gonzoron
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

You completely missed my point due to your tunnel vision, but thanks for playing. It's the free market at work, and was a legitimate question. Which you didn't answer. 

It may have been “legitimate,” in the sense it was sincere. But I assumed it was sarcastic, given the obviousness of the answer — which was implicit in my previous post. In any event, the answer is “no.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati: Fifth Third Bancorp to Raise Minimum Hourly Wage to $18

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fifth-third-bancorp-raise-minimum-130000513.html

 

Will this move by this socialistic Company trigger bank failures across America because those firms simply can't compete?

If they and other banks do fail due to their own freely chosen policies it will be their own fault, and not the fault of government.   There is a difference, sorry that you no longer can see that.  

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

If they and other banks do fail due to their own freely chosen policies it will be their own fault, and not the fault of government.   There is a difference, sorry that you no longer can see that.  

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

True.  And the local government will suffer reduced tax revenues as a result. Again, the fault of bad government policies/laws.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

This begs the question whether it is a wise policy for local government to enact. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bobref said:

This begs the question whether it is a wise policy for local government to enact. 

There is no mention of that in the article posted by @Muda69

The Civil War was started due to an argument just like that one.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

There is no mention of that in the article posted by @Muda69

The Civil War was started due to an argument just like that one.

Well, do you or don’t you have an opinion you wish to share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Well, do you or don’t you have an opinion you wish to share?

Yes, in case you missed it:

9 hours ago, gonzoron said:

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech: https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-supports-a-constitutional-amendment-that-would-radically-curtail-freedom-of-speech/

Quote

Every Democrat in the Senate is backing a constitutional amendment that aims to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision in which the Supreme Court lifted legal restrictions on what corporations and unions are allowed to say about politics at election time. That would be troubling enough, since Citizens United, which involved a film that was banned from TV because it was too critical of Hillary Clinton, simply recognized that Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights when they organize themselves in a disfavored way. But the so-called Democracy for All Amendment goes much further than nullifying one Supreme Court decision. It would radically rewrite the constitutional treatment of political speech, allowing Congress and state legislatures to impose any restrictions on election-related spending they consider reasonable.

"To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo.

...

The rationale for that conclusion is not, as critics often claim, that "money is speech." The point, rather, is that people must spend money to communicate with large numbers of their fellow citizens. Limits on spending therefore restrict their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights. If the government banned computers and smartphones, that would clearly violate the First Amendment—not because computers and smartphones are speech but because they are necessary to participate in online debate.

The Democracy for All Amendment would ditch this understanding of the First Amendment and instead rely on legislators' self-restraint in deciding which limits on spending are "reasonable." Courts reviewing the resulting rules would have precious little guidance in deciding when they went too far.

...

"Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.), a lead co-sponsor of the amendment. Chris Coons, the other Democratic senator from Delaware, likewise promises that the amendment will "give all Americans an equal voice in our elections."

Carper and Coons are not saying that every American should get an equal vote. They are saying that every American should have an equal influence on the political debate, which is impossible but would seem to require, at the very least, that no one be allowed to spend more on election-related speech than the poorest American can afford. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that such equalization of speech is inconsistent with the First Amendment. As now-Justice Elena Kagan noted in a 1996 law review article, it is well-established that "the government may not restrict the speech of some to enhance the speech of others."

...

Carper describes this license for censorship as "a straightforward constitutional amendment that will restore the health and integrity of our campaign finance system." That's true only if "health and integrity" require muting some voices so that others may be heard. But that goal is plainly at odds with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While the amendment has zero chance of actually being adopted, the fact that the entire Senate Democratic Caucus thinks it's a fine idea speaks volumes about the party's disregard for those freedoms.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...