Minimum Wage and McBudgets

[Lewkowski]

Right, like the early Founders who wrote laws prohibiting women and non-white men from owing property, but were legal property themselves? Yeah, individual freedom and liberty was championed by white, male land owners who didn't want the government telling them how to run their business....or limit their use of slaves or indentured servants.

Newsflash: the Civil War is over and the Union won. The beauty of the Constitution is its adaptability throughout time, as a living document open to interpretation. Including terms like Man, The People, freedom, liberty, ownership, private, public, harm, Public Good, equality, and justice.

The constitution has an amendment process you twit. THAT is what a living document is. Having 5 un-elected judges decide that freedom of speech is only ok for non-political speech is pretty stupid eh?

[Hazir]

What is liberals obsession with race? The only part in America that is racist is the Democratic party.

Given that it's extremely strange that ethnic minorities don't vote Republican in droves isn't it?

[Hazir]

The constitution has an amendment process you twit. THAT is what a living document is. Having 5 un-elected judges decide that freedom of speech is only ok for non-political speech is pretty stupid eh?

You mean we should take the 'living document' definition you give more importance than the fact that the Supreme Court and its remit are actually spelled out in the document itself?

[RandBlade]

You mean we should take the 'living document' definition you give more importance than the fact that the Supreme Court and its remit are actually spelled out in the document itself?

Technically I thought the Supreme Court kind of determined its own remit early on - using the powers it has granted itself to determine what the Constitution means.

[RandBlade]

Where did american jobs go?

America has an unemployment rate of 7.7% - barely different at all to the UK's 7.6%

So 93.3% of Americans in the job market are employed. Not sure which jobs you think have "gone".

Spain and Greece on the other hand as a counter example both have 26.8% unemployment.

I'd rather be like America and the UK than Spain and Greece.

[Being]

America has an unemployment rate of 7.7% - barely different at all to the UK's 7.6%

So 93.3% of Americans in the job market are employed. Not sure which jobs you think have "gone".

Spain and Greece on the other hand as a counter example both have 26.8% unemployment.

I'd rather be like America and the UK than Spain and Greece.

Now take a look at what has happened to the participation rate over the last 30 years. U3 goes down when people drop out of the labor force (USA) or are bribed to stay out of the labor force (UK). Unemployment rate (U3) isn't an indicator of the adequacy of the number of jobs. Not enough jobs then people drop out and U3 goes down. Like I said, look into the reason your country outright pays people to stay out of the labor force. Your previous answer, socialism, is the vehicle, not the reason. Since you are too stuborn to ever admit it I will say it for you; there aren't enough jobs for everyone capable and willing to work. If there were not so many people would be satisfied with the tiny stipend they get for being on the dole.

[RandBlade]

Now take a look at what has happened to the participation rate over the last 30 years. U3 goes down when people drop out of the labor force (USA) or are bribed to stay out of the labor force (UK). Unemployment rate (U3) isn't an indicator of the adequacy of the number of jobs. Not enough jobs then people drop out and U3 goes down. Like I said, look into the reason your country outright pays people to stay out of the labor force. Your previous answer, socialism, is the vehicle, not the reason. Since you are too stuborn to ever admit it I will say it for you; there aren't enough jobs for everyone capable and willing to work. If there were not so many people would be satisfied with the tiny stipend they get for being on the dole.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Categorically and 100% wrong.

You only get "bribed to stay out of the labor force" as you put it ... if you stay in the labour force . You can only claim unemployment benefits if you are actively looking for work - if you quit that for whatever reason then you're not eligible . The LFPR includes both the Employed AND the Unemployed. If you get the dole, you're counted.

Try looking at the real causes of changed in the LFPR since the one you've mentioned is by definition NOT a cause since by definition you are counted in that scenario. The LFPR measures those who are choosing not to work and there are a number of dynamic and long-term causes behind such changes:

1: Demographics. Single biggest factor by far. Half the change in the US LFPR since 2008 is purely demographics. http://www.businessinsider.com/miche...on-rate-2013-5
2: Gender. Historically the largest change, now displaced by demographics. US Female LFPR used to be very low but rose dramatically for decades and reached a plateau in approximately 1996. US Male LFPR has been steadily declining for 70 years. This has been overlooked based on the female increase.
3: Education. Those continuing education are not counted.
4: Retirements. Retirees aren't counted.
5: Stay at home parents. If not looking for work, not counted.

Factors not affecting LFPR: Unemployment.

I expect the LFPR to continue to fall as long-term factors continue to play. It has been falling for men for 70 years and that is before the retirement of the baby boomers. This was masked by female increases but that is no longer an issue and ceased to be 17 years ago.

[Hazir]

Technically I thought the Supreme Court kind of determined its own remit early on - using the powers it has granted itself to determine what the Constitution means.

True, but that's the kind of freedom the Constitution offers. And why would the drafters of the Constitution worry about 'excessive' powers of the Court/courts? The separation of powers itself is the limit on the remit of the Court.

[RandBlade]

That's the kind of freedom that dynamic constitutional arrangements have made. Not excessively clear legalese written paper. The US Constitution is very short, almost non-existent compared to modern legal creations (contrast size of US Constitution with proposed EU one). Many so-called constitutional conventions in the US come not from what's written but unwritten conventions and legal precedent. Almost like Common Law and our "unwritten" constitution.

[Hazir]

That's the kind of freedom that dynamic constitutional arrangements have made. Not excessively clear legalese written paper. The US Constitution is very short, almost non-existent compared to modern legal creations (contrast size of US Constitution with proposed EU one). Many so-called constitutional conventions in the US come not from what's written but unwritten conventions and legal precedent. Almost like Common Law and our "unwritten" constitution.

Which makes the claim that a Supreme Court doing what it has been doing for God knows how long (including sweeping constitutional rulings) is somehow not as it was intended more than a bit silly.

[Lewkowski]

Which makes the claim that a Supreme Court doing what it has been doing for God knows how long (including sweeping constitutional rulings) is somehow not as it was intended more than a bit silly.

If they wanted the Supreme Court to trump the bill of rights they would of added that in. As of now outside of an impeachment process there is nothing that prevents the court from saying that its perfectly OK to censor all speech the government wants and eliminate all rights to bear arms.

[GGT]

Would of?

Look, the US is a constitutional, representative democracy, with three branches of federal government. We're also a Union of States, each with their own government branches, elected representatives, and constitutions. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the "things" that bind us, and define us, as a nation. We can change it with Amendments, and we can also repeal those Amendments (ie, the 21st).

If you're proposing we change our Judicial branch, SCOTUS in particular, do you have an alternative in mind....that wouldn't first require a constitutional amendment?

[Hazir]

If they wanted the Supreme Court to trump the bill of rights they would of added that in. As of now outside of an impeachment process there is nothing that prevents the court from saying that its perfectly OK to censor all speech the government wants and eliminate all rights to bear arms.

Actually they gave the Court jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights too, by not stating that it was exempt (which would have been silly to start with) from the broad jurisdiction the Court got. And, I repeat, given that the powers of the Court are curtailed by the separation of powers, they most likely did not intend to curtail its powers in any other way.

And indeed, if you want to curtail the powers of the Court then you'd either need the Court to tell us that there is a limit to its powers or you'd need a Constitutional Amendment.

[Loki]

Given that it's extremely strange that ethnic minorities don't vote Republican in droves isn't it?

The racism benefits those groups, so...

[Lewkowski]

Would of?

Look, the US is a constitutional, representative democracy, with three branches of federal government. We're also a Union of States, each with their own government branches, elected representatives, and constitutions. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the "things" that bind us, and define us, as a nation. We can change it with Amendments, and we can also repeal those Amendments (ie, the 21st).

If you're proposing we change our Judicial branch, SCOTUS in particular, do you have an alternative in mind....that wouldn't first require a constitutional amendment?

Its more of a cultural thing - the judges should not get away with being able to violate the constitution based on what they think is right and wrong. Congress should hold them accountable via impeachment when they make decisions on things like limiting political speech that would have our founders turning in their graves. Will this happen - it won't (sadly). "Interpreting" the constitution in a way that is completely opposite to what the founders would have espoused is a violation of their sacred duty. Following their own political beliefs of right and wrong and how a country should operate is seriously fucked up. Their beliefs on the way the country *should* run should not sway their view on their rulings on the law.

[RandBlade]

The Judges can't interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended even if they wanted to as the Constitution you have today isn't the one the Founders wrote. The Bill of Rights was not incorporated to limit the States originally (eg States could have banned guns if they wanted to) but the 14th Amendment has been taken as extending most of the Bill of Rights to States too. Though the 14th arguably doesn't say that it should happen (its aimed at States but very similar to the fifth and doesn't reference the others), but its been interpreted that way. Now would you rather SCOTUS ignored the 14th Amendment and allowed States to make guns illegal? Nothing in the US Constitution as written by the Founders would have been violated by a State blanket ban on all guns.

Or is it only when SCOTUS differs from the Founders on things that you disagree with them doing that they should be impeached for.

[GGT]

Its more of a cultural thing - the judges should not get away with being able to violate the constitution based on what they think is right and wrong. Congress should hold them accountable via impeachment when they make decisions on things like limiting political speech that would have our founders turning in their graves. Will this happen - it won't (sadly). "Interpreting" the constitution in a way that is completely opposite to what the founders would have espoused is a violation of their sacred duty. Following their own political beliefs of right and wrong and how a country should operate is seriously fucked up. Their beliefs on the way the country *should* run should not sway their view on their rulings on the law.

All SCOTUS judges believe the Constitution is a living document, open to interpretation. ie, their judicial interpretation. That's why nominees undergo a rigorous nomination and confirmation process, including all branches of government.

You're talking smack. SCOTUS judges aren't violating the US Constitution whenever you disagree with their conclusions. Congressional confirmation is a mandatory part of the process. And today's Chief Justice John Roberts...is a "conservative" who served under Reagan's administration, was nominated by Bush, and confirmed by a Republican majority vote.

[Hazir]

Its more of a cultural thing - the judges should not get away with being able to violate the constitution based on what they think is right and wrong. Congress should hold them accountable via impeachment when they make decisions on things like limiting political speech that would have our founders turning in their graves. Will this happen - it won't (sadly). "Interpreting" the constitution in a way that is completely opposite to what the founders would have espoused is a violation of their sacred duty. Following their own political beliefs of right and wrong and how a country should operate is seriously fucked up. Their beliefs on the way the country *should* run should not sway their view on their rulings on the law.

Nobody told you to put a system of appointments in place that is so politicized that you can expect nothing but politically animated judges.

[Lewkowski]

All SCOTUS judges believe the Constitution is a living document, open to interpretation. ie, their judicial interpretation. That's why nominees undergo a rigorous nomination and confirmation process, including all branches of government.

You're talking smack. SCOTUS judges aren't violating the US Constitution whenever you disagree with their conclusions. Congressional confirmation is a mandatory part of the process. And today's Chief Justice John Roberts...is a "conservative" who served under Reagan's administration, was nominated by Bush, and confirmed by a Republican majority vote.

What bar would you set for the impeachment of a supreme court justice who makes a ruling that is obviously counter to the law of the land. IE if a justice (and his four buddies) rules that woman could only vote if they were married. Their reasoning? Because they interpret the constitution to mean that. Obviously an extreme example but would you call for their impeachment? And if so please tell me where you would draw the line what would be the least extreme example that would warrant impeachment?

[Lewkowski]

Nobody told you to put a system of appointments in place that is so politicized that you can expect nothing but politically animated judges.

Heh - you make a good point but founding a Democracy has its bumps and bruises. It was important to prevent the will of the majority from screwing the country up.

[Aimless]

What bar would you set for the impeachment of a supreme court justice who makes a ruling that is obviously counter to the law of the land. IE if a justice (and his four buddies) rules that woman could only vote if they were married. Their reasoning? Because they interpret the constitution to mean that. Obviously an extreme example but would you call for their impeachment? And if so please tell me where you would draw the line what would be the least extreme example that would warrant impeachment?

By the time something like that happens your society will very likely have become so fucked up that no-one will call for their impeachment.

[Aimless]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tanya-...b_3441704.html

[Lewkowski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tanya-...b_3441704.html

Affirmative Action causes far more problems then it solves.

1. Lowering expectations causes lower results.
2. Further's biases post college "Oh wow he got into Med School because he's black - I'm not sure if I should trust him as my doctor" (Clarence Thomas has written about the problems facing minorities who are successful but still face a bias because of the belief they were given something due to race"
3. Further's classification by race as opposed to merits.
4. Plain and simple - its racist.

[LittleFuzzy]

Affirmative Action causes far more problems then it solves.

1. Lowering expectations causes lower results.
2. Further's biases post college "Oh wow he got into Med School because he's black - I'm not sure if I should trust him as my doctor" (Clarence Thomas has written about the problems facing minorities who are successful but still face a bias because of the belief they were given something due to race"
3. Further's classification by race as opposed to merits.
4. Plain and simple - its racist.

It's discrimination. Specifically it is positive discrimination. Discrimination does not have to be and in this case certainly is not racism. Racism is about thinking one or more races are intrinsically superior to any or all others. Racism fuels invidious discrimination, discrimination that is offensively unfair and/or intended to create ill-will and resentment or otherwise disparage those discriminated against.

[Aimless]

Affirmative Action causes far more problems then it solves.

1. Lowering expectations causes lower results.
2. Further's biases post college "Oh wow he got into Med School because he's black - I'm not sure if I should trust him as my doctor" (Clarence Thomas has written about the problems facing minorities who are successful but still face a bias because of the belief they were given something due to race"
3. Further's classification by race as opposed to merits.
4. Plain and simple - its racist.

I'm fairly sure you're at least partly wrong on all counts and find it ironic that you're being led astray by your black-and-white thinking

[RandBlade]

It's discrimination. Specifically it is positive discrimination. Discrimination does not have to be and in this case certainly is not racism. Racism is about thinking one or more races are intrinsically superior to any or all others. Racism fuels invidious discrimination, discrimination that is offensively unfair and/or intended to create ill-will and resentment or otherwise disparage those discriminated against.

I disagree. Treating people differently based on race is racism. Why do we need to do it?

It's also stupid and counter-productive. Anyone who loses out due to discrimination is pissed off, anyone who would have got in anyway is left with a cloud of suspicion over them and is treated by their skin colour and not by their efforts. Finally once more: Why? What fault is it addressing? If its because we think poor black kids have less life chances, well so too do poor white kids. If the son or daughter of a nice middle class black couple who's parents are both highly successful lawyers (or POTUS) gets the same result as a white orphan in care or from a ghetto or some other tough environment ... Should the middle class lawyers kids get positive discrimination? Why?

The only justification can be that somehow somewhere racial superiority exists. That the black kids can't do it on their own. That is racism pure and simple.

We don't live in a society where you don't have successful black parents, doctors, lawyers etc. They ought to be celebrated on their own merits and if faults exist still then tackle them in a more nuanced and serious manner than just lazy racism.

[Timbuk2]

I would suggest that policies of positive discrimination are put in place to address (perceived) institutionalised racism.

IOW, (the perception is that) black kids are not given the same opportunities as white kids, simply because of the colour of their skin. All things being equal, Bloggs Co prefers to employ white John Smith over black Bill Jones, because Bill is black.

Now how widespread this is I do not know. Anecdotally, I have several circumstances I can relate of exactly this kind of racism in the workplace.

Such practices are abhorrent.

However, I would also argue that while positive discrimination may statistically alleviate such occurances of racism, it does nothing to address the underlying cause(s), and ends up being discriminatory against white John Smith. Efforts are better spent on both educating people and enforcing more rigid employment practices.

[Aimless]

I disagree. Treating people differently based on race is racism. Why do we need to do it?

It's also stupid and counter-productive. Anyone who loses out due to discrimination is pissed off, anyone who would have got in anyway is left with a cloud of suspicion over them and is treated by their skin colour and not by their efforts. Finally once more: Why? What fault is it addressing? If its because we think poor black kids have less life chances, well so too do poor white kids. If the son or daughter of a nice middle class black couple who's parents are both highly successful lawyers (or POTUS) gets the same result as a white orphan in care or from a ghetto or some other tough environment ... Should the middle class lawyers kids get positive discrimination? Why?

The only justification can be that somehow somewhere racial superiority exists. That the black kids can't do it on their own. That is racism pure and simple.

We don't live in a society where you don't have successful black parents, doctors, lawyers etc. They ought to be celebrated on their own merits and if faults exist still then tackle them in a more nuanced and serious manner than just lazy racism.

It's extremely strange to read this sort of thing. Do you not realise that black people in the US have worse chances compared to similarly wealthy or similarly poor white people? Do you not know that two of the stated goals of affirmative action are to tackle implicit negative race-based discrimination and deeply entrenched structural biases that make it worse to eg. be black than to be white when all other things are equal, except perhaps in cuckold porn?

I can understand disagreeing with the prognosis but you should keep in mind the diagnosis and the rationale for treatment.

[Hazir]

Well, 'color blind' people tend to mistake the recognition of discrimination on the basis of someone's race with actual racism. Maybe that's related to their blindness.

[Enoch the Red]

Racism fuels invidious discrimination, discrimination that is offensively unfair and/or intended to create ill-will and resentment or otherwise disparage those discriminated against.

Don't you think it's possible that the person who was sent a rejection letter from their college of choice, or missed out on a job opportunity because they weren't the right race might feel ill-will and resentment?