The minimum wage was originally passed with the intention of providing a full-time worker the capacity to support himself and a family. The federal minimum wage in the United States was set at $0.25 per hour in 1938. It was not tied to inflation and has to be increased by law. The term “Act of Congress” is often used to describe a massive and nearly impossible action. In this case it is both a literal and figurative truth.
Most everyone I meet seems to think that the minimum wage was never intended to be other than a wage for teenagers. They are wrong. The minimum wage is just that, the minimum acceptable wage that a full-time worker can make and be able to subsist without assistance.
No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. —President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933
The minimum wage was established to ensure that all workers in the US would be able to live independently on their wages. The existence of a minimum wage provides all other workers with useful bargaining leverage, increasing wages throughout. Historically this typically results in a redistribution of wealth from owners to workers (not a commensurate increase in prices as some here have claimed), which always results in an overall increase in economic growth as workers are also consumers.
In the US minimum wage has become stagnant, failing to reflect inflation. A large part of that is the misconceptions throughout this thread. Minimum wage is not “earned solely by teenagers and college students for beer money.” Nor can any reasonable person suppose that anyone doesn’t deserve to “live comfortably on 40 hours a week.”
These, fairly recent, attitudes have been encouraged by business owners who have little incentive to pay their workers a reasonable wage, so long as there is an army of unemployed and underemployed willing to do the same job. The minimum wage subverts that desire.
Simply put, an owner pays a little as he can for the labor. The rarer a laborer’s skills are (not how skilled or useful he is, the owner never pays anyone he doesn’t have to) the more he can charge because he is difficult to replace. Minimum wage establishes a floor, as do overtime requirements and other fair labor standards.
The minimum wage has nothing to do with whether or not someone “deserves” to be paid for their work. Your boss will never pay you more than he has to, that is the central premise of a free market. A minimum wage says that no matter how little he wants to pay you, he should still pay you enough to live on. It is also simple economic sense, it saves money that would go to public welfare to support people who are employed. It is a decision by society as a whole that no one who is willing and able to work should find themselves in poverty.
All that being said, the shareholder prefers that money goes to his bottom line, and not into wages. So he fights any increase tooth and nail. The misconceptions and the insane anger from some focused on those on the rung lower on the socio-economic ladder are one tool to avoid it. Another is spreading misinformation to lawmakers; claiming that increasing minimum wage dampens, rather than strengthens, the local economy. And the last is simple apathy, since the minimum wage is not tied to inflation it becomes increasingly trivial as time goes by. After a while it becomes, as it has now, a poverty wage.
by John Tremblay
| Tagged: minimum wage
| Comments Off on The Minimum Wage: Why it Works
I recently had a discussion come up over the following video. The individual made the argument that since private sales of firearms do not requiring a background check, private sales are a loophole. I explain why that just isn’t the case. What follows is the video and our exchange.
Quick google search gave me this:
‘Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show.’
So Fullauto can sell me a gun without performing a background check, recording the sale or even asking me for identification. Now, if fullauto gets an FFL (allows you to manufacture, import and sell guns and ammo) then he will need to perform a background check on anyone he sells guns to.
So, if a gang in Chicago wants to buy guns to exploit this loophole, they get a guy in Indiana who can pass a background check to buy the guns, ‘sell’ them to the Chicago gangmembers and voila, that seller hasn’t committed any crimes despite the fact that he knowingly sold guns to people he knows wouldn’t be able to go through the legal avenues.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Here’s the deal PGFL1988.
It’s perfectly lawful to sell a firearm privately in the USA. Now of course if you knowingly sell one to a felon then you’re committing a felony.
The gun grabbers want to criminalize private sales without government permission so they dishonestly label private sales as being a LOOPHOLE.
There is no GUN-SHOW LOOPHOLE for the simple fact that federal gun laws do not magically go away at a gun-show. The dealers at gun shows are basically Federally Licensed Dealers who go on the road.
Now I don’t know if you’ve ever been to an American Gun Show but there’s a reason criminals do not aquire guns there. First, THEY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. Second, gun shows are over priced. You’re better off finding a good deal online. HOLY SHIT YOU CAN GET A GUN ON THE INTERNET!? Yes, HOWEVER the firearm MUST BE shipped to an FFL in your State. This involves you calling the FFL first and asking if they are willing to handle the transfer and getting their license number to give to the online shop. You then must pay for a background check and whatever fee the FFL wants to charge for handling the transfer.
The bottom line is that Obama is a fucking liar.
A quick google search? A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH? Sure, if you google “gun show loophole” of course you’re going to get links to all the bullshit anti-gun sites repeating the same lie. “I’m right because of a google search” does not a valid argument make.
”Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show.”
Is this statement incorrect? Are private sellers not allowed to sell guns at a gunshow?
If yes, then there is a gunshow loophole. Just because the majority of people selling guns at gun shows are FFL holders doesn’t mean that all of them are.
This is from the CATO institute, which is clearly a right wing think tank and even they say that the gun-show loophole doesn’t exist:
‘Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete).
Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.
If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority.’
it seems pretty clear to me that there is a loophole. Can you explain how you read this same information and come to the opposite conclusion?
If you want to say that closing the loophole will hurt individual sellers too much, or that it’s way too inconvenient then that’s a reasonable argument, but to simply say that the gun-show loophole doesn’t exist is bordering on delusional.
“Can you explain how you read this same information and come to the opposite conclusion?”
Yes your statement regarding current law is correct.
- Licensed dealers who make their livelihood from selling firearms are required to perform background checks.
- Private individuals (people NOT in the business of selling firearms) are not. Some wanting to unload part of their private collection may engage in commerce with another private citizen. If I wanted, I could take my rifle to a gun show and sell it to another attendee.
Now pay attention because although what I’m about to write is very simple to grasp, it non-the-less seems to fly over the heads of people like yourself who, in their lack of understanding, have swallowed the lies of the elitist gun-grabbers.
The fact that a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL may sell their PRIVATE firearm without first obtaining government permission IS NOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, A LOOPHOLE.
A LOOPHOLE arises when ambiguity in the law is exploited to circumvent that law.
There is NO AMBIGUITY in the current federal gun law stating when background checks are and are not required.
This notion that violent felons are lining up at gun shows because it allows them to circumvent federal law is absolute bullshit.
It is ALREADY unlawful for a felon to possess a firearm.
It is ALREADY unlawful for someone to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon.
Criminalizing private sales WILL NOT stop felons from obtaining firearms. Background checks WILL NOT stop felons from obtaining firearms. You’re fond of Google searches, Google “straw purchase”, lying on a government form is not difficult.
If the chicken-little(s) screaming about the so-called “gun show loophole” are really concerned with gun shows, why are they pushing for a law that effects everyone?
Mind you, they don’t want to just require background checks for private sales at gun shows. They are demanding Congress outright prohibit private sales PERIOD.
When you stop using the propaganda term “gun-show loophole” and call it by it’s actual name the fallacy reveals itself; it is the “freedom-to-engage-in-lawful-private-commerce loophole”. Did you catch that? They’re saying that a freedom enjoyed by law abiding people is a fucking loophole.
They don’t give a flying fuck about gun shows. The gun show is just a boogie-man used to scare ignorant people into giving up their personal liberty.
“If you want to say that closing the loophole will hurt individual sellers too much”
^^ I’m not saying that.
“it’s way too inconvenient”
^^ I’m not saying that either.
“but to simply say that the gun show loophole doesn’t exist is bordering on delusional.”
It appears that way to you because you’ve been brainwashing into accepting a 1984-ish version of the term “loophole”.
What they ACTUALLY WANT is to criminalize people who engage in private lawful commerce absent paying fees and obtaining a one off government license for each transaction.
To what end? We know it doesn’t stop criminals.
It’s simple, they want is to open up a backdoor to the creation of a national gun registry.
How do we know this? Because Republicans actually submitted a background check bill in the Senate that would have opened NICS to private individuals FOR FREE.
Guess what, it was voted DOWN by Democrats who were pushing for their bill that would have forced all sales to go through a 3rd party FFL dealer.
The biggest reason why this issue is bullshit is that there is ZERO evidence that UBCs do anything to hinder the ILLEGAL trade of firearms among criminals. And the reason is simple yet I constantly have to repeat it here, CRIMINALS BY DEFINITION DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS.
Can you sell guns at a gun show without doing a background check? If so, then how is that not a loophole?
It just keeps flying over your head doesn’t it. I just answered you but I’ll do it again because I’m just that awesome.
If I want to sell my personal property at a gun show, there is NO LAW PROHIBITING me from doing that.
If I want to sell my personal property just outside the entrance of the gun show, there is NO LAW PROHIBITING me from doing that.
If I want to sell my personal property in the parking lot of a gun show, there is NO LAW PROHIBITING me from doing that.
If I want to sell my personal property on Thursday at 6:30pm while eating a taco, there is NO LAW PROHIBITING me from doing that.
Gun show or not, if I choose to sell my privately property to someone whom I have no reason to suspect is a prohibited person, there NO LAW PROHIBITING me from selling my personal property if I so choose.
Why is it not a loophole, because words have meaning and you are applying the term loophole to something that isn’t a fucking loophole, it’s merely something that is lawful and has always been lawful.
For example. An FFL may not sell a handgun to someone under the age of 21. But an 18 year old person is a legal adult and may lawfully purchase and own a firearm from a private individual.
Now by your reasoning that is a loophole. Your reasoning is in error because you have a false definition of what constitutes a “loophole”.
Let’s pretend Congress had intended to enact Universal Background Checks when it passed the FOPA in 1986. Furthermore, let’s pretend that somewhere in the law they fucked up the wording and by some unseen method of legal judo, under certain conditions a person could indeed technically sell their privately owned firearm without a background check.
That my friend is the definition of a loophole.
In reality Congress has NEVER INTENDED to enact Universal Background Checks. The FOPA of 1986 unambiguously states that background checks are ONLY required when a firearm is sold by an Federal Firearms dealer. Furthermore it unambiguously states that a Federal Firearms dealer is someone who makes their living from selling firearms.
QED: There is no loophole. The term is being intentionally misapplied in order to suggest something semi-illegal is happening. It’s nothing more than a dishonest buzzword used to scare people.
Here is an example of how one might misapply the term loophole as you are.
By law, an individual must have a Class A (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate a for-hire tractor trailer on US roadways.
By law, an individual may operate a tractor trailer on US roadways WITHOUT a Class A license if they are only transporting items for themselves.
Is that a loophole? Absolutely not. The law is clear and unambiguous.
If certain powerful companies wanted to put a stop to farmers hauling their own goods to market, they could do what you and the gun grabbers are doing. They could act as if it should be unlawful and assert, dishonestly, that the farmers are somehow exploiting a loophole.
Suppose I purchase three pair of high quality sun glasses at a great deal. The law requires the business to collect sales tax on my purchase.
A few months later I turn around and sell those glasses individually for a profit.
Am I exploiting a loophole and avoiding the collection of sales tax?
According to you that could be construed as a loophole.
But the law is clear and unambiguous. Only people in the business of selling sun glasses must collect sales tax.
Let’s take it one step further. You manage to convince enough politicians to enact UNIVERSAL SALES TAX and everyone must collect sales tax any time they sell something they own. Do you really expect the criminals selling knock-offs on the street to follow your new little law?
by John Tremblay
| Comments Off on Refuting the “Gun Show Loophole” Assertion
I can go buy a tool that has the power to end multiple people’s lives, and it wouldn’t take me very long or that many resources. You can offer the, “oh, they’re ah-regulating us” argument (which has been moving at a snail’s pace relative to other first-world nation’s progress in terms of gun control), but at the end of the day you have access to most everything you can ask for in regards to handheld weaponry.
There may be people out there who want to come for your guns, but if they couldn’t succeed after Sandy Hook then your guns are fully protected and good to go and tonight we will sleep a glorious and restful sleep knowing that after multiple children were killed in their own school that NOTHING was pushed through on gun control. A few dead children or innocents every year is simply the price we pay is all. We salute them for their sacrifice, but it’s far more important we have our guns than to try to stem massacres like that.
– Grothesk (Anti-Gun Forum Member)
I’m of the belief that if we banned guns 100% outright – that we would still have guns on the streets being used as tools in violent crimes, (criminals won’t turn them in, some legal gun owners won’t, they can be built, imported illegally, or stolen / bought from those we would still entrust them to).
Additionally I’m also of the belief that if you remove the specific tool, this does not remove the motives or the means to do harm. What kind of equipment would I need to murder a bunch of kindergartners? I dunno, a lead pipe? An Axe or Ford F250? I don’t need an AR15 to attack children and unarmed civilians in a ‘gun free zone’.
The ‘Happy Land Fire’ was an arson attack that killed 87. The ‘Bath massacre’ killed 45 in a school with commercial explosives. Oklahoma bombing killed 168 using store bought fertilizer. Heck on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, some whack job stabbed 24 at an elementary school in China. (Never mind 9/11). Bad people doing bad things, even without guns, because you can’t regulate away crazy.
Like the old adage says “if there is a will, there is a way”.
This is usually where you concede that banning guns outright, would not remove gun violence/crime outright (because it won’t), but isn’t it worth a shot if it helps save a life/lives/cuts the number etc.? (In your words “Try to stem massacres”). Well – that’s a very fair argument, that I am willing to discuss.
The argument I think essentially boils down to “You should surrender individual liberty, in exchange for community safety”. And that is not an unreasonable argument, you can’t drive 200MPH through a school zone, or perform surgery while drunk/high. We make sacrifices like that every day to ensure the safety of all. Where I take offense to this argument is that on the issue of guns (and only on the issue of guns) it often becomes black and white. “If we could save just ONE childs life, isn’t it worth it?” No – sorry, its not that easy. There is weight to the pros and cons – it is not absolute.
Currently the speed limit in CA highways is 65. If we reduced the speed limit to 60 I assure you, at least one life would be spared. As we lowered the speed limit to 50,45, 20 and so on, more and more people would be saved. But do we do it? No – because the convenience of getting from point A to point B 5 minutes faster outweighs the value of the lives that would be saved.
Religion and Expression/Speech have killed more people historically than all the mass murderers combined, but we don’t stop the Klan from having their annual parade down the street, or censor the Westboro Baptist Church from spreading their message of religious hate. Why? Because we value the ability and freedom to express our opinion (no matter how distasteful) more than the lives that could be saved by preventing this kind of toxcicity in our culture.
(Example: Aug 4th man arrested, could face up to 3 years for performing a Hitler Salute in public.
Germany has got their shit together – why don’t we do that?)
We could outright ban alcohol or at least limit the legal BAH in public to 0.0% to prevent “buzzed driving” or prevent people from making unsound choices while intoxicated (never mind lives actually lost to alcohol use). But we don’t, why? Because we still have hopes that people can enjoy their liberties, if they take responsibility for their actions.
In all cases of personal liberty BUT firearms, can we say that we value our freedom to X, more than we value to lives that would be saved if we further regulated or restricted X – without sounding like a total asshole. And I don’t think that is fair.
Why do I support gun ownership?
Essentially – firearms are the great equalizer. I’ve lived on and off in some pretty bad neighborhoods where safety is a real issue. Never once have I specifically worried “I hope I don’t get shot”. Why? Because as noted above – it’s not needed, it’s overkill. If 5 unarmed dudes walk up to me on the street and demand my wallet – they are going to get it. I have no delusions of going Steven Seagal on their asses and coming out on top. If I had a firearm, the odds are flipped 180* – they don’t have a chance. (As an aside, about 3 months ago a friend of a friend was mugged on the street, they asked for his wallet, he gave it up instantly, they then took his wallet and beat him anyway – ended up with a punctured lung, broken ribs, broken eye socket and I think a couple others. He was fucked up enough that his wedding this summer had to be postponed.) It is in the nature of criminals to be predatory – they will attack when they have the advantage of numbers, strength, weapons or surprise. A firearm is your only hope of being put on level footing.
This goes doubly so for those less able to protect themselves, I’m 6ft Combat Vet that is 200 lbs of mean motherfucker – and as I noted before, I know my limitations in a fight. My wonderful girlfriend (that means the absolute world to me) is 5’6 110lbs with wrists about the size of a half dollar. She doesn’t have a mean bone in her body and couldn’t protect herself in a fight if her life depended on it – however she is a crack shot and with only 1 day of instruction can sink 6/6 shots center mass every time. The gun gives her the power to be self reliant, where without it she would be wholly at the mercy of her attackers (regardless of it they were armed or not). Essentially I believe that rendering good people helpless, does not render bad people harmless.
I’m just being a realist. I’ve seen violence first hand, and I’d prefer to prevent my loved ones from being victims. There are bad people in this world (criminals), there are crazy people in this world (mass murderers), there are opportunists (Black Lives Matter riots), and there are good people who are doing what they have to do to survive (Katrina victims, a situation that could *easily* be replicated in California). Disarming me, may reduce my chances of being specifically shot, but it ultimately does not keep me safer from any of them. *PHEW* Ok groth. Just a heads up that I won’t bother to continue this conversation, you can reply if you like and I might read it, but I won’t reply in kind just because this is already too much damn typing. Sorry to dip out, but I have faith we could do this forever and get nowhere. Cheers.
-N M E (2nd Amendment Supporter)
by John Tremblay
| Comments Off on Eloquent Response to Common Anti-Gun Talking Points