Global Min. Wage

I post this, a call to arms to all the people of this earth. Our world is getting smaller, Globalization is happining. The E.U. was first to see this and made the euro. Why is the rest of the world so far behind? Did we not learn anything from this recent world wide rescission?
In some nations jobs are leaving to other nations that charge less for there labor, and yet are still in poverty. While the so called "rich" nations lose their incomes. In the U.S. alone the gap of rich to poor increases, in the rest of the world this happening also. A global wage, would bring impoverished countries up and keep the "rich" countries competitive with the rest of the emerging world. I ask you brave and brilliant people , to come the aid of my call, to embrace my idea, or to show were it would be wrong?
"PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!"

I post this, a call to arms to all the people of this earth. Our world is getting smaller, Globalization is happining. The E.U. was first to see this and made the euro. Why is the rest of the world so far behind? Did we not learn anything from this recent world wide rescission?
In some nations jobs are leaving to other nations that charge less for there labor, and yet are still in poverty. While the so called "rich" nations lose their incomes. In the U.S. alone the gap of rich to poor increases, in the rest of the world this happening also. A global wage, would bring impoverished countries up and keep the "rich" countries competitive with the rest of the emerging world. I ask you brave and brilliant people , to come the aid of my call, to embrace my idea, or to show were it would be wrong?
"PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!"

How about this ...

INDIVIDUALS OF THE WORLD STAND UP!!!

It's not my responsibility to decide for a business, or a laborer for that matter, what their value is worth monetarily.

If the workers wish to receive less than what your arbitrarily defined amount of a "fair" wage, that is their choice.

I prefer that we maintain individual liberty, and allow people to make decisions for themselves, rather than pretend to know what is best for everybody.

Ah a free thinker, rare for a soldier. But allow me to interfere with your "logic". You say its none of your business if someone chooses to work for less and that individual Liberty really exist. And yet here you are soldier, fighting for another country, two in fact. Did not these countries have there own right to live the way they wanted, did they deserve to have there individual liberty destroyed. Did they not have have the right to over throw there regimes themselves instead of having you, as you put it "pretend to now what is best for them".

I'm sorry If I Hurt Your Feelings


That is all. Dismissed.

Vdevils,

As a Soldier, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That Constitution does not support the notion of Federally sponsored intervention into foreign Nations for any reason other than self-defense.

I do not personally believe that the occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq is necessary for our National security. However, targeted strikes of militant Islamic extremist groups are alright with me, since they first struck us [and have, since the '70s].

So no, I can't defend our actions. However, I was also not allowed to disregard my orders. So, during my time in Afghanistan, I made no attempt, nor gave any order, to interfere with the lives of the Afghani nationals [beyond the obvious].

My intent while I was there was to defend individual liberty [which is a Universal right, in my opinion]. The only time that I was active in "destroying" anything was when the individual liberty of Women and Children was violated by the defunct masochistic dogma of radical Islam.

Stone a Woman for being raped, I'll gladly defend her life over yours. Blow up a little girls' school because they "shouldn't be learning", and I'll happilly return the favor.

How do I justify my determination of right or wrong? Simply put, if you attempt to threaten the right to life or liberty [freedom to do as one wishes without infringing on another's rights] of a person, you have forfeited your own.

The conflict of interests existed for me, but I did my absolute best to adhere to my philosophy of defending individual liberty, regardless of my disagreements. And I can tell you today that I have nothing to be ashamed of.

... And don't worry, you won't be hurting my feelings any time soon

[Scott]

I do not want a global government. The thought of it is very scary to me, in a sort of Orwellian sense. I think it would be corrupted and the power would be used to put wealth and power even more into the hands of the few and further enslave the working class at the benefit of special interests.

Also, a government mandated minimum wage has many harmful economic effects that could potentially increase poverty.

I think we can more effectively increase the average wage and reduce poverty by ensuring that everyone in the world is able to get high quality education and job training while having food, clean water and shelter since one cannot learn properly if they are starving to death. Additionally, we can stop what I call the neo-slavery that causes much of the poverty and economic non-meritocracy in the world, which we can do namely by giving people equal rights to natural resources.

Also, wages can be improved via free-market unionization of workers to collectively bargain against the unions of property-owners and employers commonly called corporations.

VDevils I strongly disagree with WTRS and Scott. I am working class, this is probably why. WTRS wants more tax payers to spend on arms and the military [as do others.]
Scott hasn`t clearly outlined why he is against globalisation?

I will tell you why a global minimum wage would work. The business fat cats would have to pay the working man in their own land a sensible wage. Rather than farm work out [leaving gross unemployment at home] for pennies to poorer countries who in turn don`t pay out as much as we do. It must be a minimum wage the workers agree to, not the government, there should be a referendum in the UK on it. Far to many are lining their pockets through government interferences in bailing them out and making the tax payer pay for it. The tax payer in Europe suffers a great deal more than most Americans who whine over petrol being $1 higher. If you saw the cost of living in Europe opposed to the minimum wage you would ask how do many people survive?
Americans think if they have to give one car up in a family who owns three cars, they are troubled. Apoligies for my cynicism but that is how the Americans on here come across on this forum. Unions should return.

to white trash soldier,
what you had described about the constitution and the involvement is and was a play on words. I did my time in Iraq also. I did not defend a constitution. The mission was false. You say individual liberty and yet you stuck to your orders, you say individual liberty but yet deny it to what you call macho Islam. you hurt other people you disrupted Afghan lives, and there individual liberty.

But besides that you still have not prove anything about why a global min. wage would be bad.

all you have done is fought against your own self and what you did over there. The mocha Islam must have worn of on ya huh?

to vulcanised,

That is exactly what will help bring about some stability to the global econ. Of course this is my opinion.

VDevils to WTRS

The mission was false

and everyone know it was false but WTRS apparently. the British taxpayer would vote tomorrow to withdraw troops economically its unsound and costing us and its not defense its offense. Problem is all the electorate in this coming fiasco for an election say they won`t withdraw. so much for elections? its not about people voting for it, it is about no party to go for.

to vulcanised,

That is exactly what will help bring about some stability to the global econ. Of course this is my opinion.

its a good opinion to push forward.

VDevils to WTRS

The mission was false

and everyone know it was false but WTRS apparently. the British taxpayer would vote tomorrow to withdraw troops economically its unsound and costing us and its not defense its offense. Problem is all the electorate in this coming fiasco for an election say they won`t withdraw. so much for elections? its not about people voting for it, it is about no party to go for.

And as I've said repeatedly, I'm an "interventional" isolationanist. Put whatever words in my mouth you wish, it won't change the truth. But your rhetoric sure is cute

I do not personally believe that the occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq is necessary for our National security. However, targeted strikes of militant Islamic extremist groups are alright with me, since they first struck us [and have, since the '70s].

So no, I can't defend our actions. However, I was also not allowed to disregard my orders. So, during my time in Afghanistan, I made no attempt, nor gave any order, to interfere with the lives of the Afghani nationals [beyond the obvious].

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

To VDevils ...

what you had described about the constitution and the involvement is and was a play on words. I did my time in Iraq also. I did not defend a constitution. The mission was false. You say individual liberty and yet you stuck to your orders, you say individual liberty but yet deny it to what you call macho Islam. you hurt other people you disrupted Afghan lives, and there individual liberty.

But besides that you still have not prove anything about why a global min. wage would be bad.

all you have done is fought against your own self and what you did over there. The mocha Islam must have worn of on ya huh?

The inherant values in the Constitution obligate me to protect and defend the United States of America. Although I don't believe an occupation of two Nations is in any way justified or effective, the other portion of my Constitutional obligation was to follow the orders of the President and the Officers appointed above me.

And the only people "I" ever hurt [I actually never killed anybody] were those who had broadcast the pride they took in killing "adulterers" [women who had been raped], blowing up little girls schools, as I previously stated, and a few for threatening the life of my men and I.

My beliefs, along with my commitment to the Constitution [which is founded upon the core principles of the Declaration of Independence], compel me to defend the life and liberty of others whose rights have been infringed. Once those men took a life, or threatened to take my men or mine, they forfeited their right to their own. I take no shame in that, and if you do, I feel very sorry for you.

As to the issue at hand [the global minimum wage], my question is WHO gets to decide it? WHY do those particular individuals have the right to determine what is "fair", and WHAT method do they utilize to establish the value of a man's labor? Is it you? Do you think you know what a man's efforts are worth? If not, who? And where do they derive that authority? And how is it justified?

The reason I oppose a "Minimum Wage" is because labor is a two-party contract - between the employer and the laborer. If the laborer feels his wages are unfair, he has a plethora of options to choose from in order to change his situation.

If he does not choose to alter his labor agreement, and accepts the compensation offered to him, who am I to step in and demand otherwise? I am not in the business of violating the liberties of other men. The employer cannot exploit the worker without his consent. If he grants it, it is his choice, and it is no right of mine to interfere with the agreement, unless either the employer or the laborer attempts to violate the life or liberty of one another.

In the latter case, I would support intervention, but only in aggregious scenarios where the victim [whether it be the laborer OR the employer] is unable to defend himself.

Clear enough for you stud?

A stud , well thank you. I guess "don't ask don't tell" not working as good as it used to.

Pros for a global min. wage:
1. will help ease poverty in some nations.
2. Global econo. will , to a point stabilize.
3. Will make free trade equally to all parties, and not just the the countries that out bid other countries with labor wage. Examples: China, India, Mexico to name a few.( I am an American so my examples are slanted.
4. Will help in the decline in sweat shops all over the world.
5. will help resolve econo. highs and lows in all countries.
6.When people are happy less destruction.
7. will help end slave trade, ( if any of you have been to S. Korea you know what im talking about.)

Pros for a global min. wage:
1. will help ease poverty in some nations.
2. Global econo. will , to a point stabilize.
3. Will make free trade equally to all parties, and not just the the countries that out bid other countries with labor wage. Examples: China, India, Mexico to name a few.( I am an American so my examples are slanted.
4. Will help in the decline in sweat shops all over the world.
5. will help resolve econo. highs and lows in all countries.
6.When people are happy less destruction.
7. will help end slave trade, ( if any of you have been to S. Korea you know what im talking about.)

Your examples are not slanted I am European and agree with them.

to Soldier
Isolationism is not the only rhetoric you used, you think the War is legitimate. re MOP thread.

[Scott]

Vdevils,

A stud , well thank you. I guess "don't ask don't tell" not working as good as it used to.

Pros for a global min. wage:
1. will help ease poverty in some nations.
2. Global econo. will , to a point stabilize.
3. Will make free trade equally to all parties, and not just the the countries that out bid other countries with labor wage. Examples: China, India, Mexico to name a few.( I am an American so my examples are slanted.
4. Will help in the decline in sweat shops all over the world.
5. will help resolve econo. highs and lows in all countries.
6.When people are happy less destruction.
7. will help end slave trade, ( if any of you have been to S. Korea you know what im talking about.)

Do you have any credible sources for those claims? Which accredited economists are you citing and where did they get their degree?

What about the harmful economic side effects of a minimum wage explained in the link I already provided in my last post and am now re-posting?

What about the tendency for a minimum wage to increase unemployment (Source: McConnell, C.R. and S.L. Brue, Economics, Irwin-McGraw Hill, 1999, 14th ed., p. 594.)?

What about the skilled workers who have worked hard and paid to go to college or move to a more capital intensive economy whose pay might be decreased to compensate for the government mandated increase in the pay of their unskilled coworkers who are currently paid less because they provide a less valuable service according to supply and demand? How would that be fair or economically beneficial?

What about the fact that other poverty-alleviating programs like the EITC have been shown time and time again to be significantly more effective at reducing poverty than government mandated minimum wage increases?

***

I am not in the business of violating the liberties of other men. The employer cannot exploit the worker without his consent. If he grants it, it is his choice, and it is no right of mine to interfere with the agreement, unless either the employer or the laborer attempts to violate the life or liberty of one another.

In the latter case, I would support intervention...

That is exactly how I feel. Like you, Whitetrshsoldier, I believe the initiation of coercion as intervention (as opposed to intervening defensively when one has been attacked or coerced against their will) inherently tends to be harmful in a utilitarian sense. The intervention often exacerbates the problems it is allegedly meant to help fix and creates new problems. The minimum wage and its drawbacks is one example of that principle out of many. (For other examples, see gambling prohibition, prostituition prohibition, immigration prohibition, gay marriage prohibition, alcohol prohibition, and marijuana prohibition.) The fact that such government interventions are often done allegedly as a way of improving the economy or protecting people is an very unfortunately irony.

The European union is already having economic troubles due to the fact that the economies of Portugal, Greece, and Italy are in serious trouble--which is driving the value of the Euro down, overall.

And, compared to the other European Union countries, those three are relatively similar.

How on earth would you unite all the world under one currency, in order to have a single standard for "minimum wage"--at least, one that meant anything?

Some places in the world pay the average worker one or two pennies a day.

There's your minimum. Enjoy.

In that case Keith Russell et al. let America take in the refugees they made homeless in this WAR instead of bunging them out into Europe for Europeans to have to keep and feed. Take responsibility America, and the world will take ours. Once your economy hits rock bottom you can enjoy being on a penny a day.

What about the harmful economic side effects of a minimum wage explained in the link I already provided in my last post and am now re-posting?

What about the harmful side effects of America invading and flattening other countries and their economies? America has no interest in Union with other lands because it doesn`t serve their arms industry and their pockets.

[Scott]

What about the harmful economic side effects of a minimum wage explained in the link I already provided in my last post and am now re-posting?

What about the harmful side effects of America invading and flattening other countries and their economies? America has no interest in Union with other lands because it doesn`t serve their arms industry and their pockets.

Your response is a red herring, in my opinion.