Latest posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
25,018
Posts
491,101
Members
27,643
Latest Member
epizalex
What's New?

Economics: minimum wage

JackD

JackD

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Sep 16, 2010
5,481
816
It's already happening with businesses buying robots to take care of tasks they don't want to pay people to do anymore. Unless the robot goes down, it's very reliable running 24 hours a day.

Amazon gave package handlers the opportunity to become delivery drivers.

Furthermore, every business is going to go the self-checkout route. Fast-food chains, people will order on their phone, then just pick it up, or say they are dining in, and viola, food arrives at your table.

Everything will become automated at some point.
 
Bigtex

Bigtex

VIP Member
Aug 14, 2012
619
936
the giants, Walmart, Amazon others are pushing an increase in min wage.. why? to completely destroy the competition that they have from small local vendors. As stated above, automation will replace many first job opportunities that currently exist, they will also replace more repetitive jobs that occur in industry. One robot can perform the work of 10 employees without a need to pay benefits, overtime, covering for call ins etc. All you need is a few techs to service and program.. The majority of Americans are too dumb to know what it coming.
The old saying...."be careful what you ask for, you may get it." I agree, so many don't know what is coming (automation) Walmart announced pay bumps Thursday that will bring its average hourly wage to over $15 an hour. Now who is going to suffer??? The hourly wage worker or the consumer? At the WalMarts in our area, both. Prices stay the same but now my wife and I have to scan a cart full of groceries and bag them all. Those who were cashiers no longer have jobs. May be we have to pay higher prices and go to Kroger where they still check you out and bag your groceries for you. They will also assist you in loading them into your car if you ask.

.

I said it quite a while back but teachers are headed the same direction and helping to promote this through distant learning and now the covid online classes. A district in Virginia is already proving I was right years ago that the goal is to replace teachers with much less cheaper teachers aids who do not have to even have a degree. One lead teacher sets up the online learning programs and the kids get on a computer while the aids watch them. This online craps schools have been doing for the past year is just testing the water. Again, be careful what you ask for.
 
B

Bilter

VIP Member
Jun 7, 2011
97
77
agree on all counts...... Critical thinking in society is essentially dead which is what the elite want. Lead the blind masses to do their bidding and retain and grow their own wealth. People are so willing to blindly follow it makes you realize just how it was so easy for Hitler to get ppl to walk themselves to their own death.
 
Littleguy

Littleguy

TID Board Of Directors
Sep 30, 2011
3,727
2,038
The old saying...."be careful what you ask for, you may get it." I agree, so many don't know what is coming (automation) Walmart announced pay bumps Thursday that will bring its average hourly wage to over $15 an hour. Now who is going to suffer??? The hourly wage worker or the consumer? At the WalMarts in our area, both. Prices stay the same but now my wife and I have to scan a cart full of groceries and bag them all. Those who were cashiers no longer have jobs. May be we have to pay higher prices and go to Kroger where they still check you out and bag your groceries for you. They will also assist you in loading them into your car if you ask.

.

I said it quite a while back but teachers are headed the same direction and helping to promote this through distant learning and now the covid online classes. A district in Virginia is already proving I was right years ago that the goal is to replace teachers with much less cheaper teachers aids who do not have to even have a degree. One lead teacher sets up the online learning programs and the kids get on a computer while the aids watch them. This online craps schools have been doing for the past year is just testing the water. Again, be careful what you ask for.
Fuck Wal mart go to Kroegers, we use a local chain friendly workers and smiles all around, next step is you climb up in the truck and unload your own shit HA!
Costco and Wally World and all that shit is a Pain In The Ass anyway, I will never be so poor that I have to join a club to buy cheap groceries and fighting with a bunch of morons to get a deal.

Ohhh BTW I agree on the online learning experiment.
 
C

ceo

VIP Member
Oct 12, 2010
704
339
not in Cali......... Maine actually.. You couldn't pay me enough to live in Cali.. well, you could but we're talking 7 figures ;)
Those high earners are the only people moving into CA.


Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
 
woodswise

woodswise

TID Board Of Directors
Apr 29, 2012
4,270
1,210
that’s not what the commerce clause is for. people like to use that excuse to get their political agenda into law. they use the commerce clause for everything the federal government does. read the Federalist papers and you’ll understand the constitution better.

The government isn’t supposed to own people and put a price on their labor. that’s oppressive.
You can argue original intent, or the Federalist Papers, all day long, but the reality is the Courts have taken a very broad view of what the Federal Government can do when citing the Commerce Clause as the basis for regulation. And using the Commerce Clause as the basis for Federal regulation is done by those from all parts of the political spectrum.
 
woodswise

woodswise

TID Board Of Directors
Apr 29, 2012
4,270
1,210
Here's a good explanation of the commerce clause: The commerce clause doesn't allow the federal government to regulated business that engages in commerce. It only allows the fed. govt to regulate the commerce itself.
Here's an article from Cornell Law Review:

Overview
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian

Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States.

"Dormant" Commerce Clause
The “Dormant Commerce Clause" refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. In West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994),the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts state tax on milk products, as the tax impeded interstate commercial activity by discriminating against non-Massachusetts

The Meaning Of "Commerce"
Origin
The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of controversy, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the Framers of the Constitution intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. Moreover, what constitutes "interstate" commercial activity has also been subject to consistent debate.

Broad Interpretation
In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824),the Supreme Court held that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided that the activity is part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. In Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905),the Supreme Court held that Congress had the authority to regulate local commerce, as long as that activity could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937),the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme.

Shift To A Stricter Interpretation
From the NLRB decision in 1937 until 1995, the Supreme Court did not invalidate a single law on the basis of the Commerce Clause. In 1995, the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by returning to a more conservative interpretation of the clause in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). In Lopez, the defendant in this case was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause, arguing that possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Supreme Court rejected the government's argument, holding that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. The Court declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005),however, the Court did return to its more liberal construction of the Commerce Clause in relation to intrastate production. In Gonzales, the Court upheld federal regulation of intrastate marijuana production.

Recently, the Supreme Court addressed the Commerce Clause in NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 US. 519 (2012). In Sebelius, the Court addressed the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act (AFA),which sought to require uninsured individuals to secure health insurance in an attempt to stabilize the health insurance market. Focusing on Lopez's requirement that Congress regulate only commercial activity, the Court held that the individual mandate could not be enacted under the Commerce Clause. The Court stated that requiring the purchase of health insurance under the AFA was not the regulation of commercial activity so much as inactivity and was, accordingly, impermissible under the Commerce Clause.
 
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
5,160
2,849
You can argue original intent, or the Federalist Papers, all day long, but the reality is the Courts have taken a very broad view of what the Federal Government can do when citing the Commerce Clause as the basis for regulation. And using the Commerce Clause as the basis for Federal regulation is done by those from all parts of the political spectrum.
Agreed. Being a good judge requires an amazing amount of discipline, as they such unbridled power if they choose to abuse it. Every time a sympathetic fact pattern comes there way, it's got to be tough not to bend the statute, etc. to get the desired result. The commerce clause, when properly construed (IMO) has always been an impediment to sympathetic results or desired gov't action.
 
Swiper

Swiper

VIP Member
Jan 8, 2011
992
716
You can argue original intent, or the Federalist Papers, all day long, but the reality is the Courts have taken a very broad view of what the Federal Government can do when citing the Commerce Clause as the basis for regulation. And using the Commerce Clause as the basis for Federal regulation is done by those from all parts of the political spectrum.
The courts are wrong. the judges in this country are too politically motivated.



if they could make a minimum wage they could make a maximum wage too. it’s all unconstitutional
 
Top