FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 5.

Since we have seen that claims saying raising the Minimum Wage causes a rise in unemployment to be false, and the positive affects such an increase has in both the public and private sectors is often ignored, what is really at the heart of the opposition?  It may not be what you think.

In fact, it may be a couple of reasons;

-  Raising the Minimum Wage must be done by Government Decree. There are those who OPPOSE ANY GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE ON WAGES, ESPECIALLY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  This holds true even if you point out how business will benefit, and profits will rise.

( Of course, to them, Government Intervention is good for such things as Tax Breaks, Bail Outs, Tax Free Loans etc.)

Some Billionaires and Multi- Millionaires consider this an acceptable trade- off,

as long as wages are in their control.

- It cuts down on the supply of POVERTY LEVEL LABOR.  Many of those working for the current Minimum Wage, cannot meet the minimal financial levels needed for the basic necessities, ( i.e, Food, Rent, Medical etc.) , even if they work full time. (It is even more of a problem with dependents.)

This often leads to taking a second or third part- time job, which are usually low paying positions similar to their full time employment.  Even when paying low wages, many employers will do just about anything to avoid paying overtime. So this leaves a pool of workers trapped in a cycle of working just to make ends meet.

However, raising the Minimum Wage to levels where poverty isn't the only result, will cut down the need for multiple employers and jobs, and give an opportunity for Individual growth through additional Education and Training.

In other words, a better prepared work force, in terms of the ability to achieve Financial and Professional success.

A SCARY THOUGHT FOR MANY CORPORATIONS.

I would like to end this Article leaving you with the following thought:

NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID PUBLICLY, THERE ARE POLITICIANS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO COULD CARE LESS THAT ANY AMERICAN GOES HUNGRY, IS HOMELESS, OR STRUGGLES TO FEED THEIR CHILDREN.  THE SUCCESS OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS DRIVING THEM CRAZY, FOR IT BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS, NOT JUST THE SELF- CENTERED.

Remember this the next time you hear a Candidate speak.

Date-  10/30/2014.

FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 3.

Instead of reciting the minimum wage rates of the 50 States in the U.S. as compared to the Federal Minimum, l would like to address a different issue.  Is the decision to raise, maintain or lower the minimum wage an issue of morality for which Government must become involved, and if so, to what degree?

Before we go on, it should be acknowledged that both sides have proponents that push extreme views, apart from mainstream supporters of compromise.

Group #1-  Pay in the private sector should be left entirely to the business owner or operator.  Government has no right or obligation to intervene, that is the free-market system, the foundation of Capitalism.  The Free Market regulates itself.

Group #2-  The Free Market system can only work if there are consumers who are financially capable of purchasing goods and/or services.  By deliberately keeping wages low, the private sector limits the purchasing power of a large part of the population.  This results in less taxes paid, and more reliance on social services to meet basic needs.  Intervention is necessary to prevent the private sector from sabotaging governments ability to provide essential services to both the public and private sectors. 

The heart of the matter is this;  what responsibility does government have, at any level, to those groups or individuals who come under its power to regulate any decisions or policies that may be employed in the market place.  Further, how is that responsibility to be extended to those who are affected by the actions of said groups or individuals.

Basically, it comes down to two competing economic theories, which in the end, are just polar opposites of each other.  All other theories can be found somewhere in the middle, and a solution may be found in adopting the positive aspects of each, and accepting that each has negative qualities to be avoided.

IT IS THE COMPETING CONCEPTS OF A HANDS-ON VS HANDS-OFF ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING BUSINESS PRACTICES.

Look for PT 4.

Date-  8/17/2014.

FEATURE ARTICLES. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION- IS IT THE RALLYING CRY OF THE CLOSET BIGOT? PT 2.

As time goes on, I wonder more frequently if people actually take the time to think about certain topics critically, before offering an opinion.

 Naturally, I am not referring to who is going to win the Super Bowl, or which movie should win the Oscar for Best Picture.  I am referencing the current venom being spouted out publicly about immigration into the United States.  So, for once, let us sit back and consider the issue calmly and thoughtfully.

Let us first look at a few myths, currently being spread by rabble rousing hate mongers.

1)  The U.S. Government wants to let everyone in, no questions asked.

      - If you can quote any Politician who has said anything like this, by all means 

        send me an e-mail with proper citations.  To my knowledge,  no such sentiment has 

        ever been expressed, at least by an identifiable and credible public figure.

2)  Closing the Borders is the only solution to safe guard the Territory of the U.S. 

-  This such a silly statement, it defies reason.  The United States has legal points of entry, just like every other country.  Commerce, Tourism and other Visitors have perfectly legitimate and legal reasons to enter the U.S. every day.

For Terrorists to try to enter at these points would be foolish, THEY ARE STAFFED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THERE SPECIFICALLY TO BE WARY OF FOREIGN NATIONALS.  People who have Valid/Legal documentation to be allowed entry should not be penalized by the paranoid.                                           

When most Americans argue about the need to close the borders, what they are probably referring to is strengthening or building up areas that are hot spots for illicit or clandestine entry into the U.S.  We'll get into this issue more in a future post.

END OF PART 2.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS- WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION UNDERSTOOD, AND WHAT MANY AMERICANS FORGET.

 

We have a great division in the U.S., and it is a tragedy of certain groups using religion as a tool to bend every American to their restrictive code of morality.  To often, they listen to populist media outlets and self-serving political pundits, and suspend their ability to think critically.  

In past articles I have reviewed the text of the U.S. Constitution, and analyzed any sections that were related to religion.  As we have seen, this can be found in only two places; Article Six and the First Amendment.

From these passages we can understand the place religious faith was meant to occupy in terms of public policy making and the creation of new laws.  Since that topic has already been covered, I will not repeat it here.  However, I would like to address a subject that is seldom discussed among students of American History: The role European History had in shaping the opinions of those drafting and creating the Constitution, in terms of what role religion would play in forming the new government.

The Framers of the Constitution were a product of the "ENLIGHTENMENT", a philosophical movement that emphasized the use of reason and intellectual reflection in solving social and political conflicts, with less emphasis on faith and traditional church doctrine. 

Too often, European Monarchs used the idea of the "Divine Right of Kings" as a justification for their throne. Throughout the middle ages, the average "Citizen or Subject", lived a life filled with disease, hunger and physical hardship. Religion and the concept of "A Heavenly reward for the righteous" offered a promise that Death would bring what life couldn't:  Eternal Happiness.

It was under these conditions that European Royalty realized an important truth; To secure the Throne, and guarantee succession of their Bloodline, endorsement by a Religious Hierarchy would naturally lead to obedience from the faithful.  After all, who was going to tell GOD that the wrong person was on the throne.

Organized Religion also benefited, for while they claimed to have GOD on their side, there was no Martial Force to protect them from rival faiths who wished to compete for the souls of the citizenry.  However, put the right person on the Throne, and your opponents may suddenly become very quiet.  Cold Steel can be a powerful persuader, if it is pressed to your neck.

The Framers of the Constitution realized the inherent hypocrisy of this "European Tradition", and did not want it transposed to the new Constitutional Republic.  That is why the following words mean so much:  "WE THE PEOPLE...", no reference to a Deity or a Sovereign.  Perhaps, for the first time in history, intellect alone was the foundation for forming a Government.

Religious Faith can be a great source of comfort and relief to the faithful.  However, spiritually, it must come from within.  If it comes from a ruling class, and their ecclesiastical allies, then it is a case of might makes right.