Alan, I thought you wanted to talk about full employment, but are continually going on about living wage jobs. the tow are not the same thing, in fact the law requires that any jobs created by the government be low skilled low paying jobs to avoid competing with the private sector... If you want to discuss living wage, or increasing the minimum wage that's great, but it isn't the same as full employment. I do support the idea that folks are entitled to the opportunity to make a living wage, but to impose a policy of full employment without dealing with the living wage will take us down a road of federally paid janitors, garbage men and the like in a federally funded caste system. Full employment doesn't improve economic opportunity, it increases the likelyhood of an onerous system of enforced serfdom, a proletariat caste that is dependent on federally funded jobs.
As part of a larger goal to give folks a better opportunity to earn a living wage, I would say that there is potential to have full employment be a desired outcome, but I do not think it is a healthy goal in and of itself, without the other pieces in place to insure it doesn't head down that slippery slope.
I believe a better goal, and platform for the party would be to say that all people have the right to the opportunity to earn a living wage.
Alan, you seem to have a problem making your points without misrepresenting what other people say. It is the full employment act, not my personal wish, that mandates that the any jobs created be low paying jobs. Perhaps you should read the law yourself? Which is why full employment in and of itself as a plank, is meaningless.
I do think there should be public works projects that help rebuild the infrastructure, and do put folks to work, and I think they could be a mixture of public and private jobs, but I think, to repeat myself, that a living wage is far more important than full employment, and that a full employment mandate, without any sort of safeguards like a living wage, will lead to companies laying off folks who then must go to the govt for a job, which could turn into them being put into a labor pool which the government pays them minimum wage (or less) and the same company that laid them off contracts with the govt' to have those same employess that used to enjoy labor protection, and benefits, and a living wage, are now doing their old jobs for a government pittance. That is full employment under the corporate hegemony. Some places have tried it, it was called workfare. Even if we do get a living wage passed, and all the sudden everybody is making whatever the living wage is, what will stop that from just becoming the mechanism of hyper inflation? So, everybody is making at least 14 bucks an hour, but a loaf of bread is 7 bucks, and a gallon of milk is 8 bucks. How do we prevent that from happening? Put pricing controls in place? Ok, but the increase in labor cost will drive up production costs. How do we address that? Federal subsidies? How do we decide who gets them? How do we pay for them?
The peace dividend? That's how I would do it, cut the military by 3/4 and end foreign aggression and imperialism, and take that money and put 1/3 of the savings into social programs like universal healthcare, a wpa type project to rebuild and modernize our energy infrastructure and living wage subsidies, put 1/3 into a renewed marshal plan and department of peace, and help build up the infrastructure around the world, increase the fertility of the middle east through huge irrigation projects like Henry Wallace suggested back in 51, and take the other 1/3 of the peace dividend and return it to taxpayers, through a progressive tax program that doesn't tax anything up to the living wage level and subsidizes those below the poverty level up to a living wage, but taxes money above the living wage level in a progressive manner. That would lower taxes for most Americans, and insure that they do not live in poverty.
Ben; I do find it extremely interesting that a proponent of Social Credit, No Difference, is "talking your language."Well, mayhaps if you'd bother to listen to what I have to say instead of diving off on polemic tyrades on how anyone not as far left of the political spectrum, and twisting folks words around and misrepresenting what they say, you might be less baffled. Just because I am not as left as Alan Maki, does not mean I am not a progressive. In fact, I am not a Progressive, because the Progressive party is too closely alligned with the Dems in VT, and refuse to challenge them. just like the "forever" postage stamps.
How will you redeem your forever postage stamps if the post office goes out of business? It is very important to understand just what constitutes a "living wage" and obviously you don't understand what a living wage is because you toss around the figure of $14.00 an hour (while Rocky Anderson thinks the Minimum Wage should be ten dollars an hour; a dollar better than the $9.00 an hour Obama promised but never delivered). Actually, you should really read up on living wage laws already on the books in some areas. In Burlington VT the living wage law is $13.94 for employers that provide insurance, and $17.71 for those that do not.
Cost of living. Hmmmmmmm. There is a concept you don't seem to want to discuss at all even though we have an entire government bureaucracy known as the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics constantly tracking all cost of living factors.Uhm, Alan, you're doing it again, Alan. I have never said I don't want to talk about cost of living. Here is another concept you don't seem to be too eager to talk about: standard of living.Alan, you really need to stop making stuff up. How am I not interested in talking about standard of living? I was trying to respect your request earlier to keep on the topic of full employment. Standard of living would be a great topic. Common sense, if not economic sense--- and justice, should tell us no worker should be expected to work for any less than what it cost to live, eh?Repeating someone's basic stance from other posts in a tone that suggests they oppose it is not a way to build coalitions Alan. If any employer doesn't want to pay a worker a wage based on what it cost that worker to live then perhaps that employer should consider doing the job himself/herself. Lol!!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a hoot watching the Wall Street crowd having to work for once?Personally, I'd like to see them chopping wood in prison.Never mind your mythical hyper-inflation you want to attribute to higher wages; let's point out that workers not having living wages in line with all cost of living factors is what results in the dreaded bust cycle of capitalism which even our semi-liberal friend Paul Krugman is calling our present economic predicament a depression.What is mythical about hyper inflation. I am not saying that a living wage would be the sole factor, but none of the factors, such as printing money wantonly, would be solved by zero unemployment policies. Look at the parallels between the economy now and the weimar republic. What was the exchange rate when they reset their currency? A trillion papermarks for one gold reichsmark. Hyperinflation is real, and the war debt we now incrue is going to be a damaging to our economy in the long run as tthe war reparations were to the Germans.Global capitalism is in a depression--- capitalism is collapsing before our very eyes; on the skids to oblivion. No, the entire global economy is, capitalists and communists alike.Capitalism's worst features being the source ofall of our problems: exploitation of labor and the rape of Mother Nature in creating massive wealth for the parasitical Wall Street few.Yeah, because workers in the soviet union were not exploited, and the Russians have a great environmental record.Quite frankly, we need these Wall Street parasites who use unemployment to keep wages down and profits up about as much as my dog Fred needs ticks and fleas.I agree, but that is different from saying that capitalism is inherently bad. Every corrupt system has parasites, which is why we need some sorts of regulations and controls. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Making the government responsible for full employment at real living wages will help us "get over the hump" as we challenge Wall Street for political and economic power and set course for a sane socialist economic system where the human needs of people always come first.Who said anything about wanting a 'sane socialist system' that has never been part of the Justice Party discussion. America doesn't want a socialist system. A socialist system isn't the only system where human needs and the needs of the people come first. A just and fair system doesn't only include socialism, and using the term socialism will kill the party. Maybe it is an exercise in semantics, I do believe in many socialist ideals, but I also believe in freedom of opportunity, the American dream. It is the corrupting big corporations that have locked out competition, stifled economic opportunity and hijacked our government, but, that doesn't mean that the form of government is at fault. Cronyism happens in every form of government. Again, the soviets and north Koreans, not so great putting human needs first. You sure want to evade talking about the government's responsibility for full employment and workers' rights to living wage jobs--- sound a little like we would be getting too close to socialism for you, Ben? Or maybe just a we bit too progressive?Ben, have you given any thought to if you are progressive?Really Allen? Again? What's with the 'right baiting'? I am certainly to the left of Bernie Sanders and the Progressive party of VT. If that isn't far enough left for you I guess it is too bad. I have been a proud member of 3 different unions, and was fired for attempting to organize the ambulance service I worked for, even filed a complaint with the NLRB, and then found out how impotent labor has become in this country. Sigh. Are you sure you are Justice? Because Justice Party is NOT a socialist party. Going so far left to be politically unviable is the wrong direction. There is a balance, and we need to strike it. Even here in VT, the most progressive state in the union, we only have an handful of progressives in office, and most of them are DemoProgs. Heck, even Bernie the socialist has bought into the military industrial bs. Vermont did have a socialist candidate on the ballot, Peta Lindsay. Maybe your brand of antagonism wold be more productive helping them, they only got like half the votes Rocky did. Do you really think going further away from the ideals American Voters hold dear will win any elections?
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!