"Why It Won’t Stop With Statues." Article on why it can be expected that the mayhem will get worse

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, you didn’t address any of my concerns, let alone all of them.

And as usual, nothing is verifiable on the internet.
 
VonDerTann said:
Actually, you didn’t address any of my concerns, let alone all of them.
Click to expand...
First was about government control: They simply ensure you pay minimum wage.

Second was the formulation of a business plan: If you don’t know what you can afford to pay in wages then please do not open a business. You will go broke.

Third was who was going to take them out of business: If you pay minimum wages and you make a loss, then the market will see to that.

Fourth was government controlling creativity: No, they just control the minimum you can pay if you want to start a business. You can be as creative as you like (Job and co.) but start paying wages and you obey the rules.

Fifth, government control: They will only ensure you pay minimum wages. Plus obey all other regulatory requirements - you can’t open a distillery in your bedroom without government control.

Let me know if I missed anything.
 
What you “missed” was the devil in the details. You’re also moving the goal posts.

Originally you wanted the government to decide whether you can open, at all. Now you’ve changed that to, “they simply ensure you pay minimum wage.” So you’ve changed the parameters of what you’d like the government to do.

As to #2, you’ve again changed the requirements to open. Now you’ve made it into “you have to have a business plan.” But that wasn’t what you stated - you originally said “if the company doesn’t earn enough to pay it…then it will go bust.” Those were your words. Who decides if they “earn enough?” Your bureaucrats (who have no experience running a business at all?)? Accountants? What if your business plan is invented out of whole cloth, or you just have good ideas but can’t write the plan? Under “President Freddy,” that person can’t open.

You’ve already walked back your plan to allow free labor - but not commission sales.

You’ve just casually said, in essence, “none of this stifles creativity.”

You never said about the cost of paying for this massive new government oversight.

It all sounds so simple - and it’d never work in real life.

PS – we’re getting bogged down. Want to call a draw and move on?
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
For example, “sexual misconduct” can involve things like 2 officers sleeping with each other consensually. That may be a violation of department policy, but it’s not a crime. In theory “misconduct” might be as simple as “not following a order,” being late for duty, etc.

In fact, the CATO Institute’s data recording, used to issue the NPMSRP, even expressly acknowledges that the incidents captured include “non-criminal complaints.”

So you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Police misconduct refers to inappropriate conduct and illegal actions taken by police officers in connection with their official duties.

The NPMSRP says 1 in 4.7 officers so rounding up (to the benefit in the boys in blue) to 1 in 5.
 
Last edited:
And as I indicated, “inappropriate conduct” need not be criminal, and often isn’t. The publishers of the NPMSRP acknowledge this.
 
VonDerTann said:
And as I indicated, “inappropriate conduct” need not be criminal, and often isn’t. The publishers of the NPMSRP acknowledge this.
Click to expand...
NPMSRP don’t deal in petty misconduct. Its a statistical project for criminal activity by police.
 
You are incorrect. The document itself that you appear to be referring to says this, for example, as to sexual misconduct:

“Officer-involved sexual misconduct describes an entire subset of police misconduct that includes non-criminal complaints such as consensual sexual activity that occurs while an officer is on-duty,…” as well as more serious allegations.
 
VonDerTann said:
What you “missed” was the devil in the details. You’re also moving the goal posts.

Originally you wanted the government to decide whether you can open, at all. Now you’ve changed that to, “they simply ensure you pay minimum wage.” So you’ve changed the parameters of what you’d like the government to do.

As to #2, you’ve again changed the requirements to open. Now you’ve made it into “you have to have a business plan.” But that wasn’t what you stated - you originally said “if the company doesn’t earn enough to pay it…then it will go bust.” Those were your words. Who decides if they “earn enough?” Your bureaucrats (who have no experience running a business at all?)? Accountants?
Click to expand...
My bad for my clumsy explanation as regards whether the government decides if you open. They legislate the minimum wage which will require you to pay it or…you’re not going to be able to open. Or rather you will open but you will be obliged to pay minimum wage or be forced to close.

And if you haven’t got a business plan that includes minimum wage and your expenditure exceeds income then…you will go bust. It isn’t compulsory to have a plan. You can open without one. Some people just wing it - and more often than not crash. Those that do have a plan must include minimum wage as part of the expenditure. This is nothing more than common sense.

And you decide if you earn enough. If you find yourself doing 100 hours unpaid work to keep the business afloat or your bank manager asks to see you about your increasing debt or you have to remortgage your house then you need to think whether it’s worth continuing. It’s mostly your call. But quite often the people you are not paying for your materials or rent (or wages) will send you bankrupt. Again, this is common business sense.

And none of this stifles creativity. It didn’t stop Jobs or a thousand other entrepreneurs who worked hard and paid fair wages when they started their business and needed more staff than just themselves and their wife/partner/dad.

And there’s no new government oversight. At least, there ain’t in Australia. And I doubt if it requires anything new in the US either. Youbhave federally mandated and state mandated minimum wages and presumably someone is already there at a desk making sure that companies comply.

It is so simple because this is the way the system is organised already. One just needs to make sure there is a minimum wage and businesses comply with it. As long as the employee agrees to it.

I say that because I have had discussions with workers in the US who volunteered to be paid less than minimum wage in return for another benefit. In the case of one guy working at a steak ranch in Amarillo, he took the tips instead of the minimum wage and was earning 3 x minimum wage in tips.

Otherwise, pay the minimum and if your business is a success then that’s great for you and your employees. If it’s not a success, then you don’t drop the wages…you go bust.

Ain’t capitalism grand…
 
Last edited:
Truth is always in competition with falsehood. Falsehood often wins.

Well, at least I tried to avoid derailing the thread.
 
VonDerTann said:
Truth is always in competition with falsehood. Falsehood often wins.

Well, at least I tried to avoid derailing the thread.
Click to expand...
Always enter the discussion thinking you have the truth but always be open that your perception of truth may need to be adjusted.

People are fond of saying “life is a lesson.”
If life is a lesson you need to accept your understanding of truth can change. If you are not open to that you’ll never grow and more importantly become unpleasant to talk too.
 
VonDerTann said:
The rioters are tearing down statutes of Catholic saints; Lincoln; US Grant; and others who had nothing to do with alleged racism.
Click to expand...
That would not be the case with Lincoln. He was very racist, very much a white supremacist. Blacks were nothing more than pawn pieces for him. He did no favors for the Blacks.
 
“He did no favors for blacks?” Please, RuthAnne, the Emancipation Proclamation is more than enough.

I would add that many see him as a martyr for the cause of ending slavery.
 
Last edited:
That’s really not the point. And although I respect your positions, Ruth, yours is really simplistic.

When Lincoln signed it, the Country was beset by the civil war - the worst tragedy we’ve ever seen. COVID and the great depression together weren’t as bad. Think Trump has it bad? Lincoln had it worse. His own party wanted to dump him; the south wanted him dead. He took a very powerful and public stand, in favor of an often unpopular position - freeing the slaves.

Now here’s what you’re missing:1) he knew it had no “oomph” until it was backed up by a military victory - so in effect he was recommitting the US to a long bloody war; and 2) you say he was a racist? OK - so he did this in spite of his own personal beliefs.

IMHO Lincoln may be the only US president who might be considered saintly.
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, the Emancipation Proclamation, when everyone’s favorite white supremacist president did not free the slaves in the swing states.
 
The slaves were just pawns. If it were about freeing slaves it would have freed the slaves in the northern states and border states where the northern armies had any authority. It only attempted to apply to the southern states that had already seceded.
 
Last edited:
Now that you got your sarcastic soundbyte out, if you think what I said is wrong, feel free to provide a substantive analysis.
 
He’s right on this. It did not include freeing the slaves in the border states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top