Why Libertarians And Anarchists On The Right Support Trump
One of the mysteries that we see when Trump is discussed is why does he get support from libertarians and anachro-capitalists. (Anachro-capitalists are anarchists from the right of the political spectrum.) Trump is after all a two party guy, a solid republican, and committed to work within the existing political system.
I have posted an article in the first comment that explains why the fringe groups of libertarians and right/anarchists never have a bad word to say about trump.
Tags
Who is online
55 visitors
Libertarians Must Defeat the Left: A New Strategy.
The libertarian movement should unite with forms of right-wing populism in order to take down the forces of elites and Marxists.
Recently, I wrote on the importance of right-wing unity. This will serve as a follow up to that piece; it is important to go into further detail about why this is essential for society to prosper.
What Is the Left?
Two main groups make up the threat of the left. First of all, there is a wave of modern Marxists. These are the groups like Antifa, who want to bring down capitalism and the social order. According to them, capitalism oppresses various groups like women, minorities, and the LGBT community. As they want to see the end of free markets, they are not friends of liberty.
The other main threat of the left is the elites. These are often crony capitalists in positions of high power and influence. These people feed the previous group of Marxists, even if they differ from them. They also tend to support wars and do shady business behind the backs of the general public. In many cases, they have a monopoly on the media and education. Both elected and appointed, elites use big government against the people. They have infected both parties. Establishment Republicans may speak against left groups like Antifa but are as pro-war as the left elites.
Together, the establishment and Marxists are a deadly weapon in politics, culture, and society. They are a threat to liberty. Antifa advocates for an ideology (communism) that opposes private property. They both are against free speech. Antifa does this via riots when conservatives speak.
It is time that libertarians adopt a strategy to stop this. Principles are dying in politics; mobs are filling the void. Trying to reason with the left will not work; they are unable to peacefully come to resolutions. We have crazy enemies in the media, establishment, left and more. The old saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measure”. But we may not need to come up with a completely new strategy, there exists already an idea that, if adapted to modern times, could serve as a solution.
Right-Wing Populism
Murray Rothbard was the father of both Anarcho-Capitalism and Paleo-Libertarianism. An anarchist, of course, believes in no government and consequently, no politics. But Murray Rothbard, while believing in an ideology that would end politics, paid very close attention to modern politics. Not only that: he participated in it. This would be shocking to some anarchists, but Rothbard knew this was necessary to advance the movement.
In 1992, Murray Rothbard published a controversial essay entitled “Right-Wing Populism”. Although the essay contains some horrid ideas (such as allying with white nationalists), some parts of this essay are a good guide for how to approach modern politics. It is very important that we (libertarians) condemn white nationalists. Once we remove this portion of the essay, what does it say?
Rothbard presents an interesting idea, that with a new approach, could be beneficial. He writes:
Rothbard described the right-wing populist movement as an “old right” that opposes big government and corporate unity. Many of the things he talks about apply to problems we face today. We are under a crony capitalist system that elites run without care for the people, and this must cease.
Allies of the Right
Cultural Marxists and elites work towards similar goals that lead to the weakening of society. Given this, it becomes abundantly clear that libertarians need allies, even if they are not pure lovers of liberty. Given the modern state of politics, this is absolutely necessary. Rothbard supported the idea of allies. But who do we choose? Rothbard makes a great point in his essay:
So, who opposes the left and elite and has the leverage to help us win? Donald Trump’s populist movement. Before throwing away this idea, it is important to look at it deeply. It is nearly obvious that Rothbard would have liked this idea. Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan, someone who is not a 100% pure libertarian. If he were around in the 2016 election, it is extremely likely he would have supported Trump.
A Voice Against the Establishment
Trump did run an anti-establishment campaign, calling out the coalition of bureaucrats and politicians that Rothbard also criticized. Take a look at these proposals below. Who does this sound like?
These are all Rothbard’s points, but some show considerable overlap with Trump.
Additional Similarities
Rothbard further details some similarities below:
A Coalition of the Right
If the father of anarcho-capitalism was open to the idea of working with “non-libertarians”, it cannot be against anarchist principles to do so. Of course, we do not have to support every idea on the list or change our principles. However, the Trump Populist Movement is a good “target” to ally with. They also could become future libertarians, as many current libertarians come from this camp. We need to put aside our differences and unite with populists. We need to find common ground and defeat our common enemy: the left.
If this alliance weakens elitism and stops the left, then there is no real reason not to consider it. Along with this, we must call out when Trump is right as well as when he is wrong. But, we need to appear friendly. Trump likes this, and if he likes us, he may ally with us and lean towards libertarian positions. Without supporting every bill or abandoning principle, we can take this new strategy. Rothbard’s thoughts on the matter are not perfect, but lay the framework for a move towards true liberty.
Who hasnt seen the local libertarians and anarchists make attack comments and articles on taxes, or racial "privileges", on street criminals, on "bums", etc. ?
This article mentions the need to defeat "the elites" (where do we hear that phrase every day? How about anifa? We hear a lot about antifa too, don't we?
I would bet that if the average citizen knew what anachro capitalism stands for , it couldnt get 1 out of a 100 people to agree with it. The figure would be less than 1 out of 100.
Yet on discussion forums these people have an outsized presence. All it takes are 1 or 2 who post all the time.
Anarcho-capitalism ( ancap ) is a fringe political ideology that prioritizes the irresponsibility freedom of the individual from state coercion [note 1] and advocates market-based solutions to all social needs. [note 2] Anarcho-capitalists believe that compulsory taxation is a violation of individual liberty, and that law enforcement, courts, and all security services should be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, such as mercenaries private defense agencies .
Anarcho-capitalism is mainly furthered in the public sphere by American reactionary think tanks ; its visible supporters mostly congregate online. It has never constituted a socially active movement or organized political power base. It's one of the youngest philosophies to try to place itself under the umbrella of " anarchism ", having only existed as a discrete philosophy for a few decades, although antecedents date back to the nineteenth century. [2]
Ancaps are as much anarchists as Christian Scientists are scientists. Traditional anarchist movements originated on the left, and do not consider anarchy and capitalism to be compatible, and thus consider anarcho-capitalism not to be an authentic form of anarchism. Ancaps have proven to be one of the greatest tools for anarchist unity in living memory, as more or less every single major anarchist group and tendency stands united in despising them. Needless to say that socialists , communists , social democrats , progressives , liberals , and centrists aren't exactly fans of them either and will more than often unite even with the aforementioned anarchists to beat up on the ancap. (Or, possibly, they're simply the biggest tools, period.) Even conservatives (even and especially of the neo variety) aren't above taking the occasional pot shot at them.
Logical fallacies
Anarcho-capitalist books tend to read like Marxist books — dense and full of provocative ideas that sound good in theory, but are presented as "this is the way it would work" when it has never really been tried. The Market for Liberty makes blanket statements such as "in a laissez-faire society, only gold would be accepted as the standard of monetary value" (how do they know?); competing educational systems would "forever end squabbles over curriculum" (how?); eliminating medical licensing would "end the doctor shortage and drastically reduce the cost of medical care" because "anyone could practice medicine in any area in which he was competent, regardless of the number of years he spent in college" but we needn't worry about quacks performing surgery because "reputable physicians would probably form medical organizations which would only sanction competent doctors, thereby providing consumers with a guide" (and no quack would falsely claim endorsement, they aren't that shady); and we needn't worry about private defense agencies becoming like warring Mafia gangs because "a defense company which committed aggression...would be left with no customers, associates, or employees except for undesirables." Not very reassuring. The book brings up many objections in a straw man manner and dismisses them without serious discussion, and uses "always", "never", and "will probably" far too much. [10]
Samuel Edward Konkin's The New Libertarian Manifesto posits five hypothetical stages in which government is supplanted by a black market "counter-economy" led by a "New Libertarian Alliance". Again, this is purely hypothetical and smacks of Marxist historical determinism and Leninist vanguardism; how does he know?
Competing private courts enforcing competing polycentric bodies of law, as envisioned by David Friedman, presents an especially confusing mess. The implications of this are best left to the reader to imagine.
While traditional anarchists believe their "revolution" won't devolve into mobocracy "because I said so" , Ancaps openly acknowledge it will , but then turn around and claim this is somehow a good thing, usually because they stand to personally benefit from it.
Assorted crankery
As with any fringe ideology, anarcho-capitalism is riddled with people stacking their own crank views on top of it, including views that conventional wisdom might hold to be incompatible with anarchism (and capitalism for that matter) to begin with. A short list could include the aforementioned Galambosian view on intellectual property; Hans-Hermann Hoppe's view that monarchy is better than democracy ; Eric S. Raymond 's wingnut views on the War on Terror ; the Robert A. Heinlein fan club who think fascist tripe like Starship Troopers is their idea of a libertarian society; and Gary North , a dominionist Christian who runs in anarcho-capitalist circles (we don't know whether he considers himself an anarcho-capitalist, but he hangs around with them).
It also has a history of people who abandon it as soon as they find themselves in a position of power (see Greenspan, Alan ; Rohrabacher, Dana ).
[deleted]
Samuel Adams
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
Samuel Adams The Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
Thomas Jefferson inaugural address March 4,1801
"what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
I'm thinking of posting more seeds that debunk libertarianism and anarchists. It is a neglected story on internet forums. Although very few people embrace these fringe ideologies every internet forum has them in a prominent place or they are very active in the group, which gives the appearance that the ideology is more important than it is. The chance that the US will ever go libertarian is zero, yet folks like you have the opportunity to speak as if you had a majority or a large base of support behind you.
Let's ship them all off to an island and let them deal with each other, and see how far they get without laws, medicine, taxes and such. Utopias do not exist, human nature being what it is, and the varied abilities of people being what they are. They'd kill each other within a year.
Of course. I don't doubt that most libertarians or anarchists mean well, but their ideas don't account for human nature and human behavior. They talk about freedom all the time, but what about the exploitation that would run wild without a government to prevent it. This land, and the world , would turn into a Game Of Thrones universe of competing fiefdoms all trying to lord it over the others , but now without government to confront them. The anachro-capitalist ideology acknowledges that order would be maintained by privately owned "security forces". Really? Soon to become private armies. I think they tried that in medieval Europe . Doesn't sound like progress.
Um....socialism, if you believe Marx, requires the creation of a "new man," to work.
One of the fundamental divide in American politics is the "right", like the founders, who believe that human nature is a constant and is the same today as it was in ancient Rome, and those who believe like Marx or Stalin, that it can be perfected.
It's not the "right wing" that keeps proposing Utopian solutions.
Very well said.
As Sean points out, though, Socialism also goes against human nature.
Really? Libertarianism and anarchy (as a political ideology) are entirely utopian. If you have a society of maybe a hundred people you might be able to set up a successful libertarian or anarchic society. We have 320 million people in the US.
I have never seen a practical explanation of how libertarianism would work in a large modern, complex society.
I think what we have to do is continue to work toward a society and form of government that maintains individual freedom while also providing economic justice and social justice. Without government we would have massive constant exploitation of the weak and small by the strong and large. That is the way of the world. Do we want a dog eat dog society? We are supposed to be evolved past that by now.
Capitalism exploits workers. Capitalism creates a poverty class, because in capitalism the owner must ALWAYS pay the worker the smallest wage possible. You will always have low paid workers who don't receive benefit from the "profit" of the business. Some of the profit goes to people who don't work at all. They "own".
In a communist society the state confiscates the business and it becomes government run.
It is better to "tax" excess profits and return their benefit to the lower classes by programs, rebates, EITC , food stamps, etc.
I dont know where you get the idea that you can have a "fair" economic system by letting the rich do whatever the fuck they want.
Libertarianism or capitalism is premised on the believe that people are selfish and will act in their own best interests. That's why the founders set up a government of limited powers with elaborate checks and balances. Power is always abused by those who posses it. Look at how self described socialists have behaved for the last 100 years once they achieve power. There is no perks or luxury they can't justify taking in the name of the people.
Capitalism is premised on the idea that the accumulation of all of these self interested actions result in the best possible outcomes for most people. It recognizes that no perfectly just outcome is possible, because we are selfish beings. Instead, capitalism harnesses human nature to achieve the best possible results. Witness what the capitalist revolution has done for living standards over the last say 300 years, compared to the preceding 10,000.
Those who understand human nature would not be surprised that a white woman would make a specious claim of minority status to maximize her chances at professional success. People, on the whole, will always act in their self interest and that's why utopian schemes never work in reality.
The owners took the economic risk to start (or invest in) the business. Many business owners work incredibly long hours, or they invent things, or come up with ideas. Intellectual work is still work.
I'm an investor, so I own parts of many companies as part of my retirement portfolio. The money I invest gives them the capital they need to operate. Without it, they wouldn't be able to hire all those workers or do the R&D to come up with new products. And yes, I share in some of that profit. And I just "own" in that scenario. I contributed so that I can be a part owner, I'm not just sitting on my ass expecting a free handout from the workers.
Unfortunately, not all people have the same skills, talents, ambition, etc. While I agree we need to try to make sure everyone has opportunities to succeed, some people are never going to be qualified or give a crap enough to gain the education and skills to do more than flip burgers at McDonalds or to cut my grass. I don't agree that someone who has never achieved any more skills than I had when I was sixteen should be paid as much as I am now; I made minimum wage back then for a reason, because that's all my skills were worth. I didn't contribute a whole lot to the profit of the business, and pretty much anyone could have done what I did (assuming they had a decent work ethic, which a lot of people do not).
Is it fair that I can't sing like Aretha Franklin, or play guitar like Synyster Gates, or play football like Dan Marino? Should I be allowed to take the money from people like them? People are willing to pay a lot of money to go to their concerts or watch their games, so IMO they have earned it. I have not. Life isn't fair, and we'll never be able to make it totally fair.
Now, I do believe in helping those who have physical or mental issues which make it impossible for them to support themselves. I do believe in spending money on training and education for people so they can find decent jobs, and investing in birth control so that people don't have kids they can't support or bring up properly. Instead of the silly idea of free college for everyone, realize that some people's talents mean they should become plumbers or something like that. Not everyone is college material. Now, if you choose to be an artist or something, that's a choice you've made and I shouldn't have to support you. Training and education should focus on skills that matter in the job market, and retraining should be available as things change.
I don't think there is any economic system that won't result in a poverty class.
Elizabeth Warren proposed a "wealth tax". According to what has been in the media about it, the tax would only effect those who have 50 million dollars or more.
If someone has 60 million dollars, they would pay a 2% tax on the amount over 50 million , which in this case would be 10 million. 10,000,000 x.02 = 200,000. So someone with 60 million in wealth would pay 200,000 in tax. per year.
200,000 is .003, or 3/10 of 1 percent.
People with 60 million dollars can't give three tenths of one percent of it to help their fellow man have a better life? I hope that is not true.
I don't think that an uneducated person should make as much as an educated person, or that a lazy person should make as much as a motivated person.
As far as investors, I think investors should be paid from the profit that exists AFTER the workers are paid a living wage. I am not against profit, but the stockholders dont get paid first. Profit should not exist until the workers are paid a living wage.
I agree that capitalism is better than socialism or communism or serfdom or slavery or any economic system, but that does not mean it should not be controlled for the common good.
It's true, I dont have 50 million dollars so this tax would not effect me. You got me there.
I can't tell anyone what to do, I am one man. But the society can decide that it is not going to allow people to accumulate astronomical sums while vast numbers of people suffer the downside of capitalism. Yes, it can.
A minimum wage was never designed to be a living wage. If you are only skilled enough to flip burgers or cut grass, you are never going to be able to support a family unless you work a couple of jobs. If you increase the non-skilled workers to a living wage, then you're going to have to raise the wages of the skilled workers, and the end result will be ... no change. If a burger flipper makes $35k, who's going to bother getting a degree for a job that pays about the same, but with a lot more effort, personal time, and ambition thrown in?
Heh. You should see my liberal friends when I get into it with them about unions
You sound like a conservative. Everyone who works should be able to support themselves in the society. If they can't because they dont make enough money, there is something wrong with the damn system.
Or do you want more billionaires created?
There will always be a lowest paid portion of the workforce. Always.
If every single person in America "bettered themselves" by getting a college degree, then we would have people with college degrees flipping burgers, or otherwise occupying the low wage status. Those who make the lowest wage will be the poor in that society. Unless a minimum wage provides a living wage.
As an independent, I'm more conservative on some issues, more liberal on others. I try to think about each issue since I'm not beholden to any party line (all either party cares about is getting power and keeping it, not the people they're supposed to represent). And as I've pointed out before, I despised Trump when he was a Democrat, and despise him now that he's a Republican - that's not a partisan thing for me
I think unions, even for public employees, had and still have their place. We have 5-day 40 hour work weeks, safety rules, and a lot of things we wouldn't otherwise have. Public servants have a lot more protection from politics, and I think they still need that. Unions also make it too damn hard to get rid of poorly performing public servants.
But the pensions and wages unions gained for their workers also had a lot to do with the downfall of, say, the auto industry. It is simply not feasible for a company to pay 80% of a worker's salary to them in retirement, plus health insurance, and stay competitive. It wasn't feasible for high school graduates on automobile assembly lines to get paid so much and compete with foreign automakers. I wish it were feasible, I really do. The entire pension system is untenable.
For coal miners? I think they're probably a necessity if just for the safety issues, not that it seems to help much.
We recently had a teachers' strike in my state and it actually was supported by a lot of people, and did some good IMO.
Then there are the whole organized crime issues with unions in the past, and the way they try to force people to join, and how much their executives pay themselves from those dues ...
So I see pros and cons.
And those that are in that lowest paid section especially those that are working for minimum wage will never keep up with the average standard of the living nor will they ever have a "living wage"
They may not "keep up" , but they could be paid a living wage. That might require less salary for the CEO's though or less return on stock market investments.
If we can't lessen the effects of poverty through wages then it should be lessened through "entitlements" like food assistance or EITC. Tax rebates.
The idea that the poor need to "better themselves" is nonsense, since even if everyone in the country "bettered themselves" there would still be the poor. We don't need more billionaires. Tax some of that money and give it to programs that help a lot of people. That is the "Christian" thing to do.
Heh, this is like old times on NV! The conservatives would call me a liberal, and the liberals would call me a conservative, based on the topic we were discussing.
I personally know too many people with no work ethic or ambition, who have no better skills than I did when I was 16. Not because they're not capable, but because they don't feel like putting in the effort. Several of them think I'm stupid for having a job where I get drug tested; they would never give up their freedom that way. And many of our local employers can't find enough workers who can pass the drug tests, yet these people would rather smoke pot than earn a decent living.
Different skills have different value, and if you're 40 and haven't bothered to learn how to do anything but run a lawn mower (such as learning landscaping or getting an arborist license which pays more than mowing grass), you really think you should earn $35k? And that the skilled people who currently make $35k should be OK with not getting paid more than the non-skilled when they get that raise to $35k? What's the point of putting in the effort if you can just coast and make the same amount? Ideally, the minimum wage jobs would be for the entry level people, who would get raises as they increased their skills.
You are making the discussion about you. That's probably not the way to look at it.
Your argument seems to be that since some "skilled" people dont get paid very much money, anyone less skilled then them should make next to nothing. That is not an indictment of the low skilled person, it's an indictment of our economic system. Anyone who works full time hours should make enough to support themselves reasonably in the society. If that is not to be the case then we have to redistribute some of the wealth at the top in the form of government assistance so those people can support themselves.
I dont have a problem with that way of doing it, but then we have all the conservatives and libertarians bitching about taxes. They cant even concede a 2 % tax on someone with 50 million net worth.
I get into it with my conservative friends about unions. I was member of Textile Workers Union at 19
John, how could she not make it about Katrix when you started with the above line to address her.
My point is that if you give the janitor a raise to $35k, then you need to give the bookkeeper who was making $35k a decent raise. Then you have to give the engineer who was making $80k a decent raise. And then prices go up because everyone is being paid more, and we're back to where we were, except now $35k is no longer a living wage.
There is a reason why people with scarce skills, or those requiring higher education and/or constant classes and certifications to keep up with changes, make more money (well, other than people like public school teachers, who are not paid anywhere near what they're worth considering how important they are and how much education they have to have) - they provide more value to their employers, and the employers need to pay competitive wages to retain these folks. If your job is something any 16 year old can do, you simply are not as valuable to your employer.
Why don't you expect people to take personal responsibility? Why should my money be taken and given to someone who doesn't feel like gaining skills? Take it and get those who WANT to work hard training so that they can get better paying jobs, and provide retraining to those whose skills become obsolete as things change. Teach a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish when he's not making an effort. And those who are capable but don't feel like working hard .. well, that's their choice, but don't take my money to enable them. Those who aren't capable, absolutely, we need to help them.
What are your views? Do you see mostly pros, mostly cons, or a mix?
People who work a full time job should make enough money to support themselves in the society. If they don't, there is something wrong with the economic system.
Maybe someone simply isn't smart enough to do a more complicated or elevated job than work at WalMart. They should have nothing because for them to have something would detract somehow from what "you" have? I don't get it.
I would have to wonder about anyone who does not support a plan to tax wealth in excess of 50 million, or the plan to have higher income taxes on earnings over 10 million in a single year. The idea that such extremely wealthy people are being "harmed" by such taxes is ridiculous. I'm not saying that you don't support those taxes, because I dont know, but I am pointing out that there is nothing wrong or immoral about "wealth distribution" of that sort.
As I clearly stated, those who simply aren't capable do need our help. But many people in that type of job could learn skills to get a better job if they tried hard enough, and if they were given assistance in learning those skills.
And no, I don't have an issue with raising taxes on the very wealthy, although I think most people agree that a lot of our tax dollars are wasted, even if we disagree on what the waste is. Congress spending money investigating steroids in the MLB, or the college playoff format ... those are things that most people I've talked to agree are a complete waste of our tax dollars. Other things are widely disagreed on, of course. But raising taxes just to waste the money won't help much.
I'd also like to see the tax code revamped to get rid of all the loopholes first. But that won't happen.
I also don't have a problem with taxing investment income at the person's regular tax rate.
All pros, after working Union jobs one summer they did not hire summer help and I worked at a non union factory. The Union factory was much better, more than twice the pay, treated good, and Union would stand up for you and hold you to standards (I didn't need that) and seniority protected workers. Union factory was harder work but worth it and there was more pride there. I like it and worked there after college but something better came along.
Is there such a thing as a utopian society for everybody?
I have an 19 year old nephew who recently dropped out of his first year at Illinois State university in order to accept an apprenticeship with the Operating Engineers local union. He now goes to community college three days a week (for something like a year and a half) to learn this profession. These people operate the heating and cooling systems (and other mechanical functions) in large office buildings, schools, industrial plants, etc. It can be at times a highly technical job. The odds are that he will eventually make more money as a building engineer than he could make in sports rehabilitation, which he was going to major in at ISU.
I had a friend who was in the Operating Engineers union for 30 years, and he would always tell people who complained about unions that without unions the wages of non union workers would be worse than they already are. Unions help to raise the wages of everyone.
My friend , by the way, died of lung cancer a few years ago, at age 59. He got lung cancer they think from the work he did in the 80's and 90's removing asbestos from school room ceilings.
Taxing wealth over 50 million or income over 10 million won't de- incentivize anyone. Those who want to expand or innovate or start a business will still do so.
Taxes are in no way immoral, or theft. They are a decision that the society makes for the common good. People who dont want to pay taxes can leave the country or state, and some of them do.
That's one thing I don't necessarily agree with. My ex-husband turned down a union job way back when, which would have paid a little more, but if anyone senior who was on night shift decided they wanted day shift, they could bump him to night shift. And he would get raises and promotions based on seniority instead of how good he was. Someone who wasn't as good at their job would get promoted over him, simply because they had been there longer.
I remember asking for a healthy out-of-cycle raise years ago, and I documented how much more work I was doing than many people. I got a very large raise due to my performance, even though lots of other people had seniority but weren't performing as much work. I want my performance to be what counts, not how long I've been somewhere.
They do, but look at the auto industry. The wages and pensions were simply not sustainable, and we see that in other industries as well.
That raises a good point - taxing wealth rather than income would be very problematic.
So your argument is that a rancher/farmer may be too wealthy too pay. If he owns 50 million dollars worth of land he can afford to pay the taxes.
I would think that the specific of the tax as it relates to farm or ranch property may receive further explanation. That is why we have a congress, to sort questions like that out.
there has to be a set way to figure out who ends up on nights and weekends, weekly shift rotation while making things equal just sucks. For a while I choose evening supervisor position because higher management rarely bothered me
That's not necessarily true. Farmers often have all their money tied up in land, equipment, and such. Wealth is not the same as income. I have money tied up in retirement accounts and investments, but I won't be taxed on it until I withdraw it or sell the investments. Which is as it should be. If you own a lot of rental properties you may be wealthy on paper, but they're not liquid assets. You still have to pay property taxes, but until you sell the properties, you're not taxed on their value. The value of wealth fluctuates anyway; until you sell the asset, it's just paper wealth. Just as when the market hits a correction, I haven't lost money unless I sell and lock in my losses; I also haven't actually earned any money until I sell and realize the profits.
We car pooled together, and if he had switched to night shift, one of us would have had no way to get to work. He applied for a day shift position and had no interest in a bait and switch if someone else decided they wanted that shift.
I'm sure all that will be taken into account when the law is written.
Should we just drop the idea? Nope.
I have explained this on this site 3 or 4 times already, and I think others have as well, and it is in every news story about this -
THE TAX KICKS IN AFTER THE FIRST 50 MILLION. Someone who has 49.9 million doesnt pay the tax. So this hypothetical rancher would not pay 1 million a year; if for example his wealth was 51 million the 2% tax is only on the 51st million. 2% of one million is $20,000.
If his wealth fell below 50 million if would pay nothing.
Taxing wealth makes no sense. This is why we have a INCOME tax and not a wealth tax.
If you want a rational idea that might be possible, then propose taxing capital gains and such at the same rate as salaries. That disparity is why Warren Buffet pointed out that his effective tax rate is so much lower than his secretary's - because hers is all salary, taxed at a higher rate, where his is capital gains, taxed at a lower rate.
I'm sorry, many people disagree with you.
The purpose of a wealth tax is to lessen wealth inequality.
They actually implemented a small transaction charge a few years back, as I recall. The day traders threw a fit but I don't think anyone else really cared. I'd have no problem with a dollar per trade.
On an unrelated note, did you read about the Cybercurrency company in Canada ... the owner recently died and his widow cannot get into the laptop that holds the cold wallet. $150 million gone (or more) if it can't be accessed ... they've hired experts but they've been unable to hack in.
I already paid tax on the money I invested and keeping it invested helps the economy. Raising capital gains would hurt my retirement
Capital gains are only levied on the profits, not the already-taxed money you invested.
I'm quite happy to pay taxes to have things such as good roads, clean water, police and laws, FDIC guarantees of my savings, and so forth - things which I cannot provide by myself.
Anarchists are just plain delusional.
Agreed
American libertarianism has as much to do with anarchism as socialism does to free markets.......
IN EUROPE, Libertarians are considered anarchists....
John ALWAYS fails to make that distinction.... It's a religious declaration with him......
Most Americans are libertarian, Libertarianism is a way of life, It was founded on it's precepts.
For socialists like John to make themselves believable they HAVE to lie.... Lies, lies, lies, lies and more lies....
Libertarianism is a way of life, those that reject that ideal are trying to manipulate you into their twisted line of thinking. They are the statists in our society.
And they need to be expurgated.....
you are an endless fountain of comic entertainment NowhereMan
Maybe so, but nowhere near half as entertaining as you and your crowd of brain dead followers.....
I'm in the 24% bracket; I won't get any more specific than that. No offense intended, I won't discuss specifics with most people I know personally, either.
If men were angel we would not need government. Men are not angels...
Complaints about paying large sums in taxes are kinda lame...
Those paying most are those with the most wealth and income.
Any years when I paid buttloads of taxes were very good years...
Well, that rules out capitalism.
Right-libertarians and so-called anarcho-capitalists are walking, talking logical fallacies. They only ever bitch about 'the state', and never give a damn about interpersonal power relations down on the ground in general society.
If a tiny minority owns and controls the means of production that the entire society depends upon for life (as in capitalism), then there exists a power imbalance that can be every bit as despotic, oppressive and exploitative as any authoritarian state. That obvious truth is always conveniently ignored, though.
Hell, Sam Adams almost sounds like a Marxist in the last part of the quote: " it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
Voluntarily becoming a slave is what capitalism is all about for the working class. Millions of workers in capitalism only receive sustenance (often meager) by laboring to generate profit for their employer, the purchaser (and thus the owner) of their labor. Put simply, their master . It's where the term wage slave comes from.
Here's how Marx once put it :
If Marx isn't your thing, James Mill was even more blunt about it :
Right-libertarians and 'anarcho-capitalists' (a contradiction in terms, by the way) who oppose government in almost any form (including a constitutionally-regulated democratic republic like our own) while at the same time championing capitalism on the purported basis of liberty (!) are misguided at best, and complete imbeciles at worst.
Not the case, actually.
Not the case, actually. Do you understand how bonds work?
Not the case, actually. Do you know how slavery actually works?
If only they were free to stop that. If only they were free to become their own employer and set their own price for their labor. If only..... oh....wait......
No, that term comes from the melodramatic imaginations of usually very whiny socialists.
The erroneousness of their beliefs does not increase the validity of yours.
Yes the case, actually. Did you not read the quote that I responded to? The one that started with the claim that "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man..."
Being free from any superior power on earth includes the will of an economic ruling class, namely capitalists. If you think owners of capital don't have great coercive power over their workers' lives and livelihoods, then you really need to look again.
It is indeed the case that a social minority owns and controls the productive resources that the entire population depends upon for life. Individualistic private property in socially-necessary means of production is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism. Having a relative few possessing things that others require for life is what mobilizes the system-wide labor force. Dispossession and deprivation is the motivational impetus that makes the whole immoral system go.
Bonds? As in the risk-free way for those with surplus funds laying around to increase their wealth without lifting a finger? Loaning the government 10 million dollars and receiving 20 million back from taxpayers in 7 years or so? Those bonds?
They're like a capitalist's dream. Let the government exploit the labor of others for you. They might be a great way for the wealthy to get back some of their tax dollars (since they're paid from the public treasury), but they're not very useful to working class folks living paycheck to paycheck and barely scraping by. As with any other investment, you kind of need plenty of money to start with if you want to see truly meaningful gains when the return comes in.
Economically? Of course I do. Do you?
Broadly speaking, the wage-working class in capitalism is a captive workforce to the system itself, who must 'voluntarily agree' to work for the primary benefit of an employer, and are made to suffer some rather painful consequences if they don't, up to and including death by starvation or exposure.
Voluntarily agreement is simply not genuine when it is coerced by an alternative of pain and suffering.
Yeah. If only... oh... wait... it takes capital. Most wage workers don't have a lot of that laying around. It also takes a solid consumer base for your product. If consumers aren't there, or if they are but you can't peel them away from larger, established competitors taking advantage of economies of scale, then it's just not going to happen. How many new businesses fail in the first few years? Something like 60%? Besides, it is technically impossible for everyone to become a capitalist in capitalism. If everyone was trying to be a capitalist then there'd be no workers to suck profit out of. It would be like a feudal manor with no serfs, nobody working to provide the lord with an income.
Capitalism guarantees the existence of a lower-income working class. You can't get away from it. It's systemic. Telling everyone they can start, succeed, and live off of their own business is bullshit. They can't. The capitalist organizational form makes it technically impossible. It would be possible with other organizational forms based on shared, cooperative ownership of capital, or even some kind of public ownership, but those forms would qualify as one kind of socialism or another, not capitalism.
Uh huh. Did you miss the part where I quoted James Mill comparing wage labor to slavery? He wasn't exactly a 'whiny socialist.' I'm not saying he invented the term, but it's not as if the term is baseless and completely unfounded.
I never said it did. I'm more than happy to leave validity up to observability and/or demonstrability.
Sure. You just have it wrong.
Do tell us what the "economic ruling class" is forcing you to do.
I have been a worker. I became a business owner. You can too. That's freedom.
Nonsense. Having wealth does not mean one has "control" of productive resources. Most of that wealth is loaned out (bonds), and the largest bond issuer in the world is the US govt.
So that's a "no", you don't understand how they work.
That's a "no", you REALLY don't know. Let us all know where we can buy US govt bonds paying 10%.
They are the socialists' dream. A nearly endless supply of other people's money.
Or they can grow some balls and start their own business.
I started my business on $2k. There are many you can start for less.
If only there were places they could get easy access to capital. Or maybe a govt program that helps them get easy access to capital. Oh....wait...
Correct. Not everyone will have the courage.
So does socialism. So does communism. You're never going to pay a waitress the same as you pay a neurosurgeon, no matter what system you're in.
Not everyone. Anyone. There is a difference.
No, it wouldn't be possible. That's just a ridiculous fantasy.
The term is a melo-dramatic whine. Describing people who can stop working at any time as a "slave" is idiotic.
How do we not have enough evidence to conclude that neither socialism nor unregulated capitalism is a viable system?
The claim is that "the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man." In capitalism, workers have to submit to the will of the owner(s) of the capital that employs them, right? They have to follow direction and do what they're told, right? If they don't they're out on their asses, right? What exactly do I have wrong? The workers aren't the bosses. They aren't running the show. If they were, collectively and democratically, it would be a form of socialism, not capitalism.
It's not about me. My interest in this subject is philosophical and academic (figuratively speaking). Workers are expected to shape their lives around their jobs and do all kinds of things they otherwise would not do, and all for the sake of someone else's profit. The list is potentially endless. It would be different if they shared control over the entirety of the revenues their efforts generate, but they don't. That's always been the analytical sticking point for me. Most people in this world have to get up everyday and work for the primary benefit of someone else: the owners of the capital they work with. Their labor is what maintains and increases that very capital, but they don't get it, they don't own it, the capitalists do. It is fundamentally exploitative, which makes it fundamentally incorrect and immoral. It is modern-day Feudal Manorialism, but in a different guise where the lords have become capitalists and the serfs have become wage workers. The socio-economic relations are nearly identical, with only a few small exceptions like the ability of the serfs to maybe serve a different lord if they want to and can find one who will take them. Also, a much greater potential for class mobility exists now, but it never seems to matter much because at the end of the day the working class is still there. Membership can vary, but it's always still there.
I didn't even use the word wealth in what you quoted and replied to, but if the wealth is functioning as capital, then it certainly qualifies as a productive resource, and one that is controlled by its owner (the person who makes it conditionally available or unavailable to others).
20 years then. The point is the same. They are risk-free and guaranteed by the Treasury. It's money a person doesn't have to lift a finger for. All they have to do is wait if they can afford to, and we all know who's better equipped for that wait, right? The wealthier a person is, the more they can buy without making lifestyle sacrifices or going hungry, and the faster their wealth can increase in the long run relative to lesser purchasers. The wealth gap only grows between them.
By the way, I forgot to ask you earlier how that negates minority ownership of a society's productive resources, which is apparently why you mentioned bonds in the first place.
Actually, socialism is supposed to be about people sharing power over the means of production they work with in order to produce their livelihoods (owning it themselves, collectively), and thus retaining possession of their own economic surpluses instead of having to give them up to a capitalist employer in exchange for their job.
Good for you. Do you have employees? If everyone was trying to be a capitalist business owner you wouldn't have them anymore. How would that work? Or are some people just supposed to function as servants for the profit of others?
Like I said before, it's a technical impossibility. Everyone can't be a capitalist because capitalists need wage or salary workers to replace and increase their capital for them. No wage or salary workers = no capitalists. Courage is irrelevant in this case, or at the very least secondary.
It looks like it's a pretty safe bet that your understanding of the words socialism and communism is such that you don't realize that neither has yet to exist, at least not on scales as large as a country or anything. That disgusting, tyrannical filth that the general public considers socialism and communism to be... actually isn't. It just isn't. If an economy is totally controlled by an even smaller social minority than exists in capitalism, then it damn sure isn't socialism or communism. They're supposed to be highly pluralistic systems, not authoritarian command economies ruled by a handful of despots. It always floors me that so few people are ever able to connect those dots, even after all of this time and retrospective.
You're right about the pay thing, though. It's supposed to be about controlling one's own economic surpluses on a level playing field, not forcing perfectly equal results.
Is it safe to assume you that only consider socialism to mean things like the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea?
The term isn't "slave", it's wage slave. It derives from and alludes to slave, but it's not a literal equivalent. I'd have thought that was obvious, considering it's not the exact same word and all.
However, as you surely know, most people in the working class cannot, in fact, "stop working at any time". What a strange thing to say. They can change jobs if they're able, but they can't just stop working. For most of them, circumstances are such that they have to keep on increasing someone else's capital if they wish to continue eating. The system demands it, it would break down otherwise.
I'm with you on the latter, but we have zero evidence on the former at scales larger than a mid- to large-sized corporation organized as a democratic workplace in the form of a worker cooperative. All that shit like the USSR that people keep calling socialism is not socialism. For that matter, neither is taxing capitalism to pay for social programs like so-called "European socialism", which is actually still capitalism.
There is, however, some evidence at the enterprise level that socialism works even better than capitalism, so long as it's actually socialism -- as in workers sharing power over capital/means of production in a democratic cooperative workplace.
Worker cooperatives operating in the common marketplace have been studied, and believe it or not they tend to outperform their capitalist counterparts. Apparently, an inclusive cooperative environment in which people know that they really are going to own the fruits of their own labor creates happier, more engaged and more productive workers than the dictatorial environment of capitalist firms, in which workers know damn well that no matter how hard they work they will never receive the full value of their labor, because the deal is that they work for an established wage or salary, and their master, I mean their employer, keeps the rest. Imagine that...
Not at all. They're free to become an owner at any time.
Ah. So this is one of those purely hypothetical/it doesn't really exist that way sort of discussions. Fair enough.
No they don't. They choose to.
So walk me through the statistical evidence that "a minority owns and controls the productive resources", if you're not using wealth statistics.
Why do I always feel like the definition of "existing" is going to be "created the impossible utopia the theories describe" and that any time these systems reveal their obvious weaknesses their defenders are going to claim "that's not socialism/communism"? The fact that these theories ignore basic human nature does not mean neither has ever existed.
Humans are all supposed to be nice to each other. Some things are just not realistic.
How do you suggest a person who is unable to work....say an octegenarian....should generate income?
I understand the term. I also understand how ridiculous it is.
They can start working for themselves at any time. Hence the ridiculousness of comparing paid labor to slavery.
Yeah, it was. I know you don't want to admit that, but it was a perfect example of how wrong that shit can go and how fast it can get there.
Over short periods, they might. But eventually the dead weight gets heavy, and the heavy lifters get tired of carrying it.
Not familiar with the existence of "profit sharing plans", are you?
I've worked in China, live in Europe, and call the U.S. my home. I think I've experienced living under different economic/political systems more than most so here are my views.
Capitalism drives innovation. A good thing for humanity to solve problems, and better itself. Has to be moderated lest the greed driven locusts that come with it will make a wasteland of your home. A winner take all leaves too many behind.
In China, you see government moderated capitalism. You can do what you want, as long as you don't do anything that upsets the one party system. The benefits there is that they make decisions quick, and can execute quickly. Need a hydroelectric dam?...... we'll get started on it tomorrow! The problem with this government is that they have 1.4-billion people they have to take care of. While they have had good growth over the last two decades, they have a huge problem with baby-boomers retiring. I see things getting difficult in China in the next few years, and corruption has been unchecked.
In the US, we also have government moderated capitalism. Our problem is that our two party system seems more interested in preserving the status quo, then solving the real problems we face. How many times do we have to have the fight over the same real estate before we can move forward? Guns, abortion, healthcare, infrastructure, tax reform, immigration reform, military funding, the budget.... the list never gets shorter, yet our time to respond does. I guess we Americans never really move unless there is a real fire burning.
European democratic enabled socialism. I think there is a better life-work balance here in Europe than in China or the US, but I also think there is less of a desire for the McMansions and Yank-Tank SUVs that make it work. People are also much more understanding of programs designed to help the many. I think a couple of world wars sent them down this path we see today. Here in Germany you get back what you give in quality of life against your tax burden. Roads and bridges are good, education is good. A recent trip to the hospital for what I thought was a heart problem (ended up being muscular-skeletal) didn't cost me a thing. Don't get me wrong, we do miss being in the US, and are ready to come home, but there are some things that the US can learn from Europe.
Libertarianism is nothing more than a concept that isn't worth the paper it is written on as a viable form of governing. It has no answer on how to moderate the negatives that come with human greed.
To really move mankind ahead, we have to come up with a system where people value something other than monetary gain. Someday I hope the value of learning and knowledge will supplant the value of money. I can dream can't I?
Libertarianism? Which has nothing to do with anything. Forty acres and a mule with a prayer that eighty acres and two mules won't take your share away.
Bottom line: Patriotic to lose a limb or life for your country. Unpatriotic to ask the uber wealthy to pay for 'their war' or those who sacrificed.
In reality libertarianism doesn't have much to do with anything. On the internet it is a perennially popular topic.
Most costs of governance are one way or another to protect property rights...
John's economic philosophy can best be stated as, "let the race to the bottom begin".
Part of me almost wishes it would happen. I would love to get a low stress, low skill, non thinking job. I haven't held one of those since high school/freshman year of college. Why bother working long hours, nights, and weekends like I currently do. If a low skill job pays "a living wage" I am more than willing to take one. I know at least 6 people in the small office that I work that would agree. Would love to be able to finally take a vacation and not have to worry about what I have to come back to at work; or my cell phone going off with co workers calling for help.
Maybe I have been wrong on these years that hard work pays. It should be any work pays.
No one is saying that people who dont have your skills education and experience should make as much money as you do.
Why would it hurt you to have people be paid a living wage?
Do you make so much money that you are ashamed?
If not, why is the minimum wage your problem?
And does a living wage include the ability to support a family, or just one person?
Again, if we raise the minimum wage to a living wage, then we have to raise the other wages as well. Because, as you yourself said, it is not fair that someone who doesn't have any skills or many job responsibilities should make as much money as I do. Then all the salaries go up, and now the living wage is no longer a living wage. Because the prices have gone up, since all the wages have gone up.
that's not even mentioning that that raise in wage will invariably mean that some those people will no longer qualify for some assistance programs they use now , thus putting them right back into the issue of not being self sufficient, the obvious thing that would happen is the programs eligibility levels( allowed income) will also rise.
Way too logical for some to grasp.
They somehow think that prices will all remain the same and that those poor hamburger flippers will now be fully self-sufficient, what with their "living wage".
And then we're back to the status quo.
Lets have all the working poor people kill themselves and then you can all be happy again.
"You" never find fault with the billionaires and all the business rip off artists, scams , crooks and thieves that swindle the American people out of billions of dollars every year, but "you" begrudge paying people a little bit better wage.
OK, we'll just have to keep giving them your tax money in the form of entitlements. The EITC was designed to appease big business that did not want to ever raise the minimum wage.
Yes, John, that is so obviously what we all meant.
SMMFH
Whew! What a relief! For a second there I thought you were going to tell us you carry liability, workmens comp, property, and health insurance.
And of course the bank lets you do everything for free, like process cards and checks.
Why should anyone in the workforce qualify for an assistance program?
Isn't that just forcing the taxpayers to subsidize their wages?
Shouldn't wages be the responsibility of the employer instead of the taxpayer?
It is what our elected leaders have decided is best for them.
We subsidize THEM, not their wages.
Wages are the responsibility of the employer instead of the taxpayer except when the employer is government.
We are subsidizing their wages if they are working. If they made more money they would not need an assistance program.
Technology will continue to replace workers with jobs that require much repetition and few skills because it is cost effective and machines will do the jobs that people won't do.
Eventually this discussion will change from minimum wage to what to about long-term, and perhaps permanent, unemployment of the majority of the low-skilled and unnecessary population of the world.
We will disagree on this one. If what some call a "living wage" is paid to all workers, then all wages will rise, and all costs for everything will increase accordingly. After a short period of time, what is considered that living wage will be considered substandard again. Simply making more doesn't matter that much, they will still be on the bottom.
That is true, but I believe it is still a ways off. But a universal "wage" or something very similar is even further off.
I don't think this is really a discussion about a minimum wage as it is what some consider a "living wage". There are really very few people who work in the US that make minimum wage, and even far fewer who make it for more than a year or two. Heck, where I live, even most of the fast food places pay more than minimum wage, and that is to just start.
Why? What made those goods worth more? Or is this a case that Wall Street refuses to share the wealth with all of the people responsible for generating the wealth?
Of course costs will rise. That is a given. The guy making $20 per hour when entry level is $10 isn't going to see someone get a $5 raise to $15 while he stays at $20.
Prices will have to increase, The goods are going to be worth more because people will pay more for them. That is all anything is worth--whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Companies who might make millions selling something for $1 will suddenly realize that even the lowest paid working customers can now afford to pay $1.50 for the same product.
Wall Street doesn't refuse to share. Do you have any idea how much money is tied up in Wall Street in retirement accounts and pensions? People invest and hopefully make money doing so. I know my personal retirement account has benefitted far more on Wall Street than most other things I could have done with that money, and certainly far more than a bank would ever pay me in interest.
By profiting from keeping expenses down and a major expense is wages.
So your retirement depends on paying people the bare minimum that it is possible to do?
Some business people do that for sure in fact my brother over heard his boss talking to one of the bosses friends walking thru the auto dealership one day that he worked at, he said he overhead his boss say to the friend,"Yep keep em poor and they'll work their asses off for you till they drop"
My brother didn't work there much longer...
.......................
trump just didn't pay or paid part and said "Shoddy work Sue me for the rest" .. To me that says either trump cant hire good people or hes a crook. Perhaps both.
No, it depends on companies I invest in operating at a profit level that can benefit me.
it is kind of the goal for companies--to be profitable.
Labor is a controllable expense, You can't be successful if you can't keep your controllables acceptable.
Very few people make minimum wage in the US. Most of those who do don't make it for very long, and fewer every year start at a minimum wage. If you have studied business or ran one, you would know that turnover is not your friend in business. Hard to keep good employees when you pay minimum wage, which is why so few companies actually do it.
I'd say there are other factors that can take it the other way, like I said above some business people have that mind set . I think that mind set may be more prevalent where and when jobs are scarce.
A good indicator of that type of owner is that they are always hiring and they dont mind, Its all part of doing business for them.
I saw heavily that in both Fl and Illinois. and it was in more than one business and more than one field and more than me seeing it.
I had a good friend who was an airplane mechanic his wages kept dropping and the work load kept increasing, anther friend was a electrician who worked construction same thing we all saw it and knew about it there were some companies you just did not want work for and there were enough of those companies they helped keep the wages down across the board for the whole and because there were so many of them it was actually driving down the wages because where else were are you going to work, not everyone was going to get to work in those field (and many more) in the area in businesses that could or would pay better wages.
In essence the crooks had cornered the market,
The companies that paid their employees well were very limited .. Both in central Illinois and the guff coast area of Florida.
I relocated.... Twice, Phoenix is better. So much competition here for good employees.
I believe it is less than 4% of the entire workforce that makes minimum wage, so there really can't be that many companies doing it, and then, how many of those jobs might be held by first-time workers?
As part of something controllable within a business, it is cheaper to keep good help than it is to train new help.
That is just good business sense, and most business owners know this. I bet the ones who don't know that don't usually last too long, and economies like this one near full employment will severely hurt them.
What about people who are just more effective than those around them?
Why don't you name a few and we'll have a thumbs up/thumbs down poll.
Or do you just hate everybody with money?
Not where and in the industries I'm talking about. construction, electrical installers, airline maintenance all have the employees, market cornered in the areas I mentioned. And those are not all minimum wages jobs for sure, although many more of them are now than not long ago, doing the same work I might add.
Welcome, Enjoy your fight.
Profits baby profits !! That's the name of the game more and more at any cost these days. And really all Investors care about.
Many jobs are farmed out to the lowest bidders. That is one of the purposes of taking bids.
I have never heard of any electricians, construction (except for maybe cleanup)airline maintenance making just minimum wage. That's unbelievable. Too unbelievable for me.
Now, if you want to argue that those companies keep wages lower than they might be, but DO pay more than minimum, then that is a different discussion.
Why should I hate all billionaires? I do hate rip off artists, scammers, crooks, and thieves. Apparently you and I have a different definition of what makes someone these things.
You're getting rather emotional if you're now accusing me of wanting all working poor people to kill themselves merely because I know that different job skills/work ethics have different values to their employers.
Aircraft Fueler (ABQ)
Atlantic Aviation
***Position for third-shift***
.................................................................
Aircraft Fueler
Line Technician (Aircraft Fueler)
.............................................................
A&P Mechanic - Piston/Jet Aircraft
Service Manager / Mechanic
Auto Mechanic / Technician
Each job you listed is above minimum wage, significantly above, in fact.
Once again, this isn't about minimum wage. Some want what they call a "living wage".
Two different things.
So few people actually make minimum wage that it isn't worth worrying this much about it.
I find it interesting that the auto mechanic job is paying more than the aircraft mechanic.
NO SHIT, Me Too
That's the result of what my point is, the wages in some industries have been decreasing much do to farming out everything they can to the lowest bidder. But,WTF kind of work do the lowest bidders usually do, low quality.
Enjoy your next fight folks
I guess not unless you or someone you love is one of them.
Have good day bye
When less than 4 per cent make it and that includes first time job holders then yes it a lot of commotion over something inconsequential
Sorry not buying it, I'm sure many of the people I do business with would disagree as well. the store clerks, the restaurant workers, my barber, the person I buy electronics from, the guys that work for my landscape service and my pool service and my bar tender to name a few.
But it doesn't really matter those jobs aren't important to society.
LOL
Most restaurant workers make more than minimum wage. If the places you frequent don't pay more, why go there?
AND IF YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAGES OF PEOPLE WHO PERFORM WORK FOR YOU, WHY NOT HIRE THEM YOURSELF AND PAY THEM MORE?
My bartender is EXTREMELY important to me! But with restaurant workers and bartenders, they actually make less than minimum wage, but when tips are factored in, they make more (depending on where they work and how good they are, of course).
My hairdresser makes way more than minimum wage, I can tell you that. I don't know if barbers are the same, where they rent a chair and set their own prices. And they also get tips (at least hairdressers do - I just tipped my hairdresser $25 last weekend for an hour and a half of work).
As for store clerks and the guys that work for your landscape service - again, a 16 year old could cut grass, and I was a cashier at age 16. This type of job should be a stepping stone and if someone makes a career out of it, they are likely not going to be able to support a family. It's not that those jobs aren't important to society (well, I don't know about hauling mulch and cleaning a pool - those are luxuries and people can always choose to do that work themselves), it's that pretty much anyone can do them. People need ambition and the opportunity to increase their skills so they aren't making careers out of that type of job. I know people who cut grass as teenagers, then they bought a few more lawnmowers after they had saved, then they started hiring other people to run those lawnmowers ... of course, they had to gain skills (or hire out) in bookkeeping and such once they became the employer, learn how to market their business, etc.
Actually, the guy who cuts my front field - since I don't want to buy a riding mower, I just cut the grass around my house and have him do the field once a month - charges me $30 for 15 minutes of work. It would take me 2 hours with a push mower, so I'm happy to pay.
Could and would you pay your pool service and landscaping company $50 more each time they come out, if it meant they were paying their employees $20 per hour?
You can try to be clever and cryptic as you like. This response tells me much more than you think it does.