Mutually Beneficial Relationships

To try to answer in order.

When the person has the only option of working for Company A, Company B, or Company C that all pay the same "market rate" of $10/hr then regardless of what choice they might make they're only going to earn $10/hr. The only choice is the company and not the compensation.

A lot of people work in professions that are highly dangerous and even threatened their lives. Take, for example, the coal miner that historically has been a very dangerous job resulting in thousands of deaths. Often people will put themselves in extreme cases of risk for a dollar.

There are often no real options for the worker. As noted about Company A, B, and C all pay the "market rate" so changing companies doesn't improve the compensation for the worker. Performance/productivity is not a criteria for compensation. In the 1970's individual productivity increased but there wasn't a corresponding increase in compensation. Market rates determine compensation and not performance. Education requires both the time and financial resources to invest in the education and the low paid worker generally has neither. Additionally education, experience, and knowledge don't always lead to improved compensation. We have about 40 million college graduates in America and roughly 50% of those are in occupations that don't require their degree or any degree at all.

The unions, that are elected representives of the workers, certainly have "negotiating power" and it's based upon the collective experience of the workers they represent. While they have negotiating power they cannot force a company to accept a contract. An enterprise only accepts a union contract if it can't realize a profit while still meeting the expenditure for labor. Demanding compensation that would drive the enterprise out of business (i.e. operate at a loss) is irrational and would not be agreed to by the union or the enterprise because it makes no sense to anyone. The fact that the unions provide positive influence on compensation to counteract the negative influence of the market on compensation results in balanced compensation. I'm often amazed that there are those that oppose balance in our economy.

"Workers who advance themselves, have the best performance, obtain the most skills, obtain education, etc. will do just fine." Try telling that to the 55 year old anesthesiologist that spend six or seven in college who's job was just replaced by Sedasys system produced by Johnson & Johnson. They just went from a profession with an average salary of close to $300,000/yr that has now become obsolete. Yes, they can receive government welfare assistance in the form of unemployment benefits of perhaps $2.400/mo (maximum in many states) for six months and then they're qualified to be a ditch digger or work at McDonald's. Americans with the best performance, the most skills, and the best education saw their income drop by an average 5% since 2009 and the highest performers actually saw their incomes drop far more. I was one of those high performers, with the most skills, and the best education and I personally saw compensation drop from over $100,000/yr to not being able to get the same job for $40,000/yr (so I retired). Had I been ten years younger I'd have been totally screwed. Employers really don't want the high performer with the most skills and education because they don't want to pay the price for that performance, the skills, or the education. They want the average worker that they can pay the market wage to.

The Republican Party opposes the EPA as well as OSHA regulations.

Republicans are highly opposed to any regulations that require enterprise to be responsible for their actions. They claim that such regulations impose costs, and that is correct, even though the costs are warranted because of the history disregard for the "rights of people" by enterprise.

Don't believe me? Try looking at the following story on Duke Energy and GOP backed legislation that allowed massive pollution by Duke Energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/tweak-nc-law-protected-dukes-180004852.html?vp=1#

Even today after a massive coal ash spill into the Dan River by Duke Energy they're only going to be required to clean up about 5% of the pollution to the river based upon Republican environmental laws that don't protect the environment. We have massive atmospheric pollution by coal fired power plants that not only creates greenhouse gases but also creates acid rain that's still destroying the eco-system in the Eastern United States. Instead of addressing the pollution Republicans are opposed to reducing that pollution by 30% between now and 2030 even though the coal industry states it can reduce that pollution by up to 40% within just a few years based upon technology that's been around for at least 10 years.

 

The vested interest is receiving SS and Medicare until the person dies. Of course there is no cash value so the value is in the programs. Congress can change anything but how much would you like to wager that Congress will never cancel or reduce SS and/or Medicare benefits? Your 'contract' is established when people pay FICA and are granted services for this payment...

 

My original Social Security card, that I still have, expressly states that I would receive partial benefits at age 62 and full benefits at age 65 but Congress chaned that (i.e. reduced my SS retirement benefits) by raising my full benefit age to 66. Congress has been consistantly reducing SS benefits and is projected to continue doing that as some have propose raising the full retirement age to as high as age 70.

Of note I've proposes the privatization of Social Security over a 45 year transitional period and the individual would be 100% vested in their contributions (up to the FICA/Payroll/Self-employment tax imposed on median income). That is not a "social welfare" program because the person is 100% vested in their contribution that is not used to support others. Social Security/Medicare are tax and spend welfare programs because they were designed that way. Claims to the contrary is pure propaganda.

 

That is absolute nonsense. When I worked at Boeing, in addition to my roles and responsibilities as defined in writing for my job description, I initiated a change in the production of 767 aircraft that resulted in tens of millions of dollars in profits for the Boeing Company. For that "performance" above and beyond my responsibilities, that I accomplished based upon my personal qualifications, I received.... several paper award certificates. I didn't even receive a merit raise from the company. The accolades came from the highest levels of Boeing management but there was zero change in my compensation based upon my personal qualifications and performance that resulted in tens of millions of dollars in profits for the Boeing Company.

Of course I didn't make the change to the production of 767's for the money. I did it because I knew how to based upon my experience and knowledge. That doesn't imply that Boeing shouldn't have increased my compensation but I simply made the change because I could. I've never restricted my job performance based upon how much I was being paid nor do most other workers.

The workers are performing but the companies simply don't compensate them based upon their performance because they don't have to.

 

I'm not opposed to anyone being given any amount of income.

I am, however, opposed to the use of violence (or the threat thereof) against otherwise peaceful people. Since minimum wage laws fall into that category, I oppose them on principle.

 

If Congress and the president made drastic and negative changes to SS and Medicare, 50 million old and very pissed Americans would gather in Washington and club all of the politicians to death.

And if this ever happened the US economy will slide into the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter overnight...

 

This is what you get being part of a union!

I remember in the 60's at a Motorola plant in AZ, one that operated 24/7, and one that employed about 5000 workers, that a janitor submitted a suggestion to management to remove every other fluorescent light bulb in all public areas. The energy and maintenance cost savings were significant and he was awarded a healthy bonus based on some percentage of the savings for 1-2 years. However, he was still a janitor, still earning based on 'qualifications, performance and the market rates' which we can guess was probably about $1.50/hour at the time. AND...assuming his performance was equal to others in his job category, I'll guess he had a favorable chance of upward mobility...

 

This is interesting because it goes against our understanding of the Natural Right of Property as established in the writings of John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. While addressed throughout Chapter 5 the fundamental proposition that a person can have "too much" income is clearly established in the final sentence of Chapter 5 that states:

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

There is a point where the income of the person exceeds what they can rationally spend on their support and comfort and the income above that amount is acquired dishonestly and violates the Natural Right of Property of all others in society. There is a logical limit to the income of the person even though it is a rather high limit.

At the same time, if you read Chapter 5, you will also come to understand that the person is entitled to their basic "support and comfort" based upon their labor. The Natural Right of Property is established by the labor of the person and by no other means and no one has a right to the labor of another person. It is irrational to believe that a person would logically give the food off their table to someone else when the lack enough for themselves and yet that's what employers are basically taking from the worker if they fail to provide adequate compensation to the employee.

That is something that "right-wing" (Austrian School) economic philosophy ignores. Under compensation for labor is a violation of the Natural Right of Property of the Person. The Person has a Right to their basic "support and comfort" based upon their labor and an employer can only establish a contractual right to the labor of the person in excess of what is necessary for the person's basic support and comfort.

Virtually all laws that affect the people come with the inherent use or threat of violence by government against those that would violate the law. Try ignoring the speed limit and refuse to stop when the police attemtpt to cite you for the violation. The odds are fairly good that they police will use violence to arrest you if you refuse to comply with their orders based upon the law.

 

I can find no reason to forbid people from giving any amount of income to anyone they choose. Other people's peaceful behavior is none of my business.

I disagree with you on this. I don't think I have the right to use violence (or have the state use violence on my behalf) to take the property of others or to criminalize their otherwise peaceful behavior.

I agree that all laws come with the inherent threat of force. That's why I oppose laws that criminalize otherwise peaceful behavior. They are essentially an initiation of violence. That's why I oppose minimum wage laws on principle.

 

Congress and the President recently did change Social Security to reduce the COLA increases so that Social Security for seniors will not continue to increase at the same rate related to the spending necessities of the retirees. Seniors have different spending necessities when compared to working Americans that are much younger and the COLA formula was changed so that it ignored the spending necessities of senior citizens. For example the costs for medical services are much greater the older one becomes while other spending, such as transportation costs, generally decreases. Medical costs are increasing at a much faster rate than transportation costs. The COLA formula for Social Security needs to be indexed to the spending necessities of the senior citizen (and it was in the past) but now it's tied to working Americans that have other spending needs.

Of course this isn't the "drastic" change you mention but it is the erosion of Social Security benefits over time and. by analogy, it's like using arsenic. A lot at once will kill you immediately but a little at a time will go unnoticed but it will still kill you eventually. Of course the current retirees don't give a damn about future retirees so Congress does focus on screwing the future recipients that are paying the current retirees' benefits. As long as they keep getting their monthy government welfare check from Social Security they don't really care if those paying the taxes today receive the same size check or not.

On the flip side we could also assume your argument is correct in which case we should increase FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxation so that everyone would have a liveable retirement income when they become too old to work. Let's increase the benefits to a minimum of perhaps $22,000/yr so that a single person can survive on it as opposed to the minimum of about $8,000/yr.

BTW - My privatization plan creates a minimum benefit of $30,000/yr without changing the 15.3% contribution because it's a personal investment plan that builds personal wealth/assets.

 

There was nothing in the union contract that prevented a merit increase of any amount or a cash award. Additionally we did have an employee suggestion program but it only applied to suggestions outside of one's job description. My job description covered every aspect of manufacturing so any manufacturing suggestion, even though it was outside of my specific roles and responsibilities, was considered to be a "part of my job" and didn't qualify for a suggestion award.

 

So long as a person peacefully complies with the law the government does not resort to violence. If a owner complies with the minimum wage laws then there is no violence. If the owner doesn't comply then the government "locks the doors" of the enterprise and there is no violence. Only if the person "resists" by an act of aggression would the government respond with violence.

There is absolutely no necessity for violence or the threat of violence by government unless the person responds to the enforcement of the law in a violent manner. It is generally the person by committing an act of aggression against law enforcement that is responsible for the violence in almost all cases. Passive compliance with the law virtually never results in an act of violence by the government and when it does then the government's actions are not protected by the law.

 

Let's suppose that my neighbor is in the habit of wearing a hat when he works around the yard. That's a peaceful act I imagine you would agree. Now suppose that one day I went over and said, "Hey, I don't like the fact that you wear a hat, so I'm making a new rule. I want you to take that hat off, and from now on the rule is that if I see you wearing that hat I am going to come over and make you do twenty push-ups. Of course, as long as you comply peacefully with this rule I won't have to resort to violence."

Would you consider my actions to be an initiation of aggression?

 

The government is not really allowed to accrue cash like in an investment portfolio. Further, and logic dictates, that anything that can 'build' can also 'unbuild' or collapse.

On another post you suggest $20/hour minimum wage, living wage, which is about $42K/year. Here you are suggesting increase the minimum SS payment to only $22K/year??

Whether it's FICA funding, or infrastructure, or education, etc. etc. the problem always seems to be enough cash! How many years has it been since deficit spending was generally below $500 billion? It doesn't make sense to me to increase taxation for FICA, or education, or anything, until we deal with the current deficit spending...

 

Not an applicable analogy. Commerce is conducted in society (public) and not in one's backyard (private) and a third party is effected (the employee).

A more applicable analogy would be living in a community that has an HOA that has rules governing the homeowners. If the homeowner violates the rules of the Home Owners Association then the homeowner is committing an act of aggression against their neighbors. This is true even if the act is passive such as failure to mow the lawn if it's required by the HOA covenant.

We have, by mutual consent under the US and State Constitutions, authorized our government to control commerce and the violations of the regulations established by the government is an act of aggression by the individual against the American People.

 

I'm a bit confused by some of the statements but if this relates to my privatization plan for Social Security then there are no government investments and the government doesn't touch one dime of the FICA/Payroll/Self-employment funds collected that are used for private investments. That money is exclusively dedicated to private investment accounts similar to current 401K retirement accounts. Only taxes imposed above the median income would go to the government for a social welfare program (i.e. Government Social Security/Medicare) and eventually Medicare, at the end of the transitional period of 45 years, would be eliminated (with Medicaid remaining as a safety net). Please refer to this thread to get a better understanding.

http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/399015-creating-fair-taxation.html

My privatization plan is really based upon a $50,000/yr or above income that requires no government subsidies or welfare assistance. If a person/household has less than $30,000/yr in income then they would receive a government subsidy to make up for the difference between their investment income and that $30,000 minimum and they would also have all of their medical needs provided for by Medicaid. If they had over $30,000/yr in income but less than $50,000/yr in income they would receive a government subsidy to purchase private health insurance. Above $50,000/yr (that even a minimum wage worker could expect based upon the history of investments) they would receive no government assistance or subsidies.

So there are safety nets in my proposal up to $50,000/yr but few would need them and the overall costs of government funded Social Security/Medicare would be dramatically reduced.

It can be noted that a major expense for a working person are those costs incurred just because they work. For example a retiree doesn't have the same transportation costs as a worker because they don't have to get to work everyday. They don't buy their lunch or need "work" clothes. Often they don't even need to own a car that many workers must have because public transportation does not meet the needs of most workers.

If you've referred to the thread on "Fair Taxation" we can have a balanced budget and a tax reduction at the same time. First we need to understand that Social Security/Medicare based upon FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes has never generated a deficit because the tax revenues have exceeded the expenditures. The deficits only relate to general expenditures and general tax revenues predominately funded by income taxes.

Based upon the federal budget for general expenditures and personal income statistics in the United States for 2013 using my "Fair Tax" proposal a flat tax rate applied to only those households with above median income (the tax exemption level) the rate would have been about 29% to fund all federal expenditures. That's a tax rate reduction of 25% from the current 39.6% tax rate we currently have. Because of the "exemption" the tax is also progressive in nature so tiered tax rates, such as we have today to create so-called "progressive" income taxes are not required.

So would replacing all personal deductions and tax credits with an tax exemption, replacing the so-called progressive tax rates with a flat tax rate above the exemption, and reducing the tax rate to only 29% (above the $50,000/yr household exemption for all personal income based upon 2013), while also balancing the US budget be something that appeals to you?

How about the privatization of Social Security were the vast majority of retirees have well over $50,000/yr in personal income and don't require even one dime of government assistance including assistance for medical insurance? A plan that completely eliminates Medicare (retaining Medicaid as a safety net), dramatically reduces the "welfare program" we call Social Security today, and that still retains a safety net that's at least four-times better than today at a fraction of the cost? Is that something that appeals to you?

 

Commerce is conducted on private property.

Okay, different hypothetical.

Let's say that my neighbor owns a shop in which he makes and sells chairs. I'm sure you would agree that making and selling chairs is a peaceful act. Now let's say I go over to his shop one day and say, "Hey, there are lots of poor people in the world who can afford your $500 chairs, so I'm making a new rule. I forbid you from charging more than $250 per chair, and if you do you will come over here and make you pay me $1000. Of course, as long as you comply peacefully with this rule, I won't have to resort to violence."

This hypothetical covers commerce and third parties (the poor buyers of chairs).

Would you consider my actions to be an initiation of aggression?

Not the same thing at all. When I voluntarily choose to join an HOA, I sign on the line that is dotted to indicate my agreement to the terms of the contract.

 

Long term divesified and age-adjusted investment accounts are immuned to short term fluxuations and we're addressing investments over a 45 year time span. If we use the recent example of the 2008 Recession, for example, while the stock market plunged it's now, only a few years later, at record highs and someone invested in stocks was not harmed by the recession. Someone nearing retirement age in 2008was not harmed because, based upon age-adjustment, they would have transferred stock investments to other more stable investments such as fixed rate government bonds. Diversification mitigates against any single investment failure adversely effecting the overall investment portfolio performance. For example, using the 2008 Recession again, a person could have owned stock in a bank that failed but it would have been an insignificant percentage of their investment portfolio and would not have had a negative effect on the overall investment portfolio performance.

Historically all long term (i.e. over 30 year) diversified and age-adjusted investment portfolios have had a return on investment of over 8% with some performing at over twice that rate of return.

There would be a safety net, as my proposal addresses, but the government costs would be far less than today even though the benefit to the person/household would be much greater because the government only has to "pick up the tab" for the difference between the private investment account and the minimum benefit. The only individuals that would require the safety net would be those that didn't work for their entire working lifetime because even a minimum wage worker would have more than enough in wealth accumulation providing income to make government assistance unnecessary.

My proposal was based upon today's federal minimum wage to ensure that any need for the safety net would be minimal. That has been the problem with Republican proposals because their privatization plans have been based upon median income and not minimum income so the poor, low income worker, would have always ended up with a poverty level income when they became too old to work under Social Security. They would have needed additional welfare assistance (that the Republicans often seek to terminate) just like many retirees today. Almost 50% of Social Security recepients have incomes below the poverty levels for government assistance (welfare) today and my proposal addresses that by raising them out of poverty.

 

That is dependent upon public property (e.g. government owned roads).

We're not talking about an individual producing a chair and selling it to a person that doesn't have to purchase the chair to begin with. We're talking about a person that doesn't produce the chair benefiting from the labor of an employee that had to have a job just to survive and the business owners is not providing enough compensation for that "forced labor" to survive on.

Yes, using "forced labor" where the person has to work to survive and not providing enough compensation for them to survive on is an act of aggression.

Everyone, excluding the Native Americans, either directly by immigration or indirectly based upon the immigration of their ancestors, has voluntarily agreed to the government (federal and state) in the United States. Just like a contract your father signed when you inherit that contract you must abide by the conditions of the contract. That is applicable under contract law related enterprise and is also applicable to the social contract between the people and the government. If your father purchase a home with an HOA contract and you inherit that home then you are also obligated to abide by the HOA contract. If your father, grandfather or prior generation immigrated to the United States they voluntarily "signed on the dotted line" to abide by the US Constitution, State Constitutions, and laws created by our government and you are also obligated to comply with those laws created by government.

Of course if you disagree with the prior voluntary commitment of your ancestors you can abandon than house with the HOA contract or leave America. No one is preventing you from exercising the inalienable right to immigrate from your native country of birth to another country. If you choose to stay in that house or stay in America that's up to you and whether you want to voluntarily accept the voluntary contractual obligations of your forefathers.

 

You label yourself "Progressive Libertarian". What part of libertarianism do you agree with?

 

Only because the Congress authorizes general spending where it doesn't have the revenue from general taxation to fund it. If the government collected enough revenue to fund the authorized general expenditures there would be no necessity for it to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund and excess revenues could be stored in American Eagle coins (i.e. lawful money of the United States). There is no mandate that the Federal government must borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund if it doesn't need to borrow to fund the authorized expenditures.

You pretend that there is a mandate for deficit spending just so the federal government can borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund that has surplus revenue but that mandate does not exist.

My proposal does exactly that because everyone above median household income is a taxpayer and my proposal provides 100% of the funding necessary for government based upon the authorized expenditures. As I believe I previously mentioned the tax rate necessary to fund all of the federal expenditures for 2013 would have been 29% above the median income of $50,000/yr (i.e. the tax exemption level) and that would have been a 25% tax cut of the top tax rate today.

The problem I see is that some, predominately extremist Republicans, believe that everyone can afford to pay taxes but that's illogical. A person should not go hungry or be evicted from their home because the government is taking money from them. That's just stupid thinking. We have people/households that can afford to pay taxes (i.e. the "taxpayers") and those that can't (i.e. the "non-taxpayers"). Based upon current tax laws about 47% of working American households don't have enough income to pay taxes. Mitt Romney pointed this out during his 2012 presidential campaign. He was condemned for how he stated it but not because it wasn't a fact.

I've drawn the line at "median income" with my "exemption from taxation" (i.e. separating the taxpayers from the non-taxpayers) because it is a commonly tracked economic statistic and ensures that all of those that are paying the taxes are the ones that can afford to pay the taxes.

 

The Freedom to Exercise (Liberty) our Inalienable Rights. The problem is that our "statutory laws of ownership" are based upon "title" establshed by the "Divine Right of Kings" as opposed to the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as argued by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.

When the United States was founded we overthrew the monarchy but retained the "statutory laws of ownership" established under the monarchy that violated the "Natural (Inalienable) Right" of property. Most of our economic problems today are based upon the violation of the natural right of property of the person.

As a libertarian I embrace the Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property and oppose statutory laws of ownership established by "title" that violate this Inalienable Right of the Person.

 

If you support the right to property, I find it odd that you constantly propose/support laws that violate our property rights in our bodies and the scarce, rivalrous resources we own. Isn't this a violation of your libertarian ideals?