Kolek planning to go pro
eh, not sure how much they are fixes as opposed to just fingers to be stuck in the dike to keep an already poorly constructed system.
I think there are some excellent ideas there and some less so. It's at least a place to begin a conversation.But wow ... there are many special interest groups who would not like many of these proposals. Which is always the biggest impediment on getting real things accomplished in politics (even at the city level).I confess that I did like this from the article:Obamacare was, in fact, the long-standing Republican alternative to the more radical health-care reforms, such as a single-payer system, that Democrats have proposed since the Truman era. What President Barack Obama and his party pushed through Congress in 2010 was more conservative — and more pro-private sector — than what Richard M. Nixon proposed in the 1970s, or what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts in 2006. Put simply, Obama dared Republicans to take yes for an answer. In a polarized America, they still said no.
Like most things in politics, special interest groups are why we get the bastardized version of healthcare (both in the past and the present). You know what the difference is between a horse and a camel? The camel is a horse designed by committee. Healthcare is some sort of really poorly designed camel.One thing to keep in mind is that this all basically comes down to a fight between state's rights and federalism. That fight makes healthcare nearly impossible to resolve because it is felt at the individual and local level, not at the federal level. IMO one of the most overlooked stories of the current technology age is how it has allowed the "nationalization" of issues away from the local levels. People in California can now comment and influence decisions in Pennsylvania and vice versa. A federal bill that applies to all is now understood at the local level and then reflected back to the national level (it's bad for this region so it must be bad for all, etc).I do wonder if the entitlement fight at the national level might eventually break the current government model of the US, either with a move to full federalism, or with a return to distributed governance and a weaker central government.
Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standardRaise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.
False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.Do well, be rewarded. Simple.
This is BS. Doing well and being rewarded are poorly related these days. It's like saying that slavery was good, because the plantations did a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees and were just disrupted by gov't. I mean, why would anyone open a plantation in a state that didn't have slavery...it is not economical, clearly slavery is a good thing.
wait a minute, everybody wins? what is that? sounds like everyone gets a trophy to me. what do you propose we raise the minimum wage to? and to what levels do you bring the "upper levels" to? try this in your household and get back to me on how it works out
^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic
The question isn't about what to do with the a-holes. The question is to what degree do we want the public sector interfering and artificially altering markets. Going after criminals (fraud, etc.) is a legit governmental function. Telling private companies how much to pay their employees? More harm than help, IMHO.
Slavery was awful and those people didn't have a choice. Comparing illegal and unthinkable activities such as slavery to a guy choosing to work a fast food job is sad, bub.
If you give companies the right to set the salary at what they want, why should they pay them anything at all? Why not switch to the chinese model of just letting them live in dormatories and providing them food?
Have you forgotten the supply side of the equation? Someone has to be willing to do the work for what you are willing to pay. And isn't the reason we shouldn't enforce the current immigration law is that we have so many jobs that Americans refuse to do?
Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.
This is where I agree to disagree - which, I think, is a good source of disagreement, and is supposed to be the key divide between the left-leaning and the right-leaning (honestly the political discourse has become so bastardized, its hard to tell anymore). And there are a lot of really good rich, mature conversations to happen around this topic that just aren't happening because everyone is busy calling each other names.I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of examples of government getting it wrong. But for me, I think we are far too defeatist about our ability to shape the world we want to live in, for fear of upsetting the invisible hand. At the risk of being labeled a commie, I think responsible approaches to the tax code, regulation of the financial industry, the health care insurance market, etc., can help us start to work our way back toward a wealth bell curve, and I don't think that stating from the outset that my goal would be approximating that bell curve is unacceptably redistributionist.
You are forgetting a lot of elements to the equation. Much as FDR created a high-paying federal works program to force wages up, right now wages are kept somewhat reasonable (and minimum wages haven't been challenged), because of welfare.The same people challenging minimum wages also challenge welfare completely are want a work requirement. Right now it is wiser to be on welfare, then to work for minimum wage...keeping things ok. If those challenging welfare/minimum wages get their way supply is not an issue. Immigration has nothing to do with jobs americans do not want to do; you are confusing immigration laws, with illegals. Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.
The majority of illegals in this country work legitimate jobs with fake work visas and are making better than the minimum wage. You would be surprised at the number of union members who are illegal, and the unions protect them. At a company I worked for, we had several instances where we could prove that an employee had a fake I-9 and/or social security card, and the union filed a grievance when we fired them. These were people making $15-$20 an hour plus full benefits.
You're right. Rather than arguing anecdotal "my boss lied to me" silliness the subject should be the role of government - I'd argue that role doesn't include advocating for every disgruntled employee.
I ascribe to Milton Friedman and his economic dictums because I believe history proves that free markets have done more to alleviate hunger and other forms of human suffering than all governments, religions, charities, etc., combined.