Renegade

You would have to be able to prove that the goat, sheep, etc had the capacity to consent, had consented, and understood what they were consenting to.

Apparently not. At one time 30 million (give or take a few million) were disgusted at the behaviour of homosexuals. Do you think that homosexuals should have had to wait until the majority stop being disgusted?

I'm not convinced that this is true, but I will accept it as an assumption for now. Imbalances of power exists in many relationships, yet society doesn't outlaw them outright. Even a traditional man-woman marriage was an imbalance of power. Arranged marriages common in many cultures is an imbalance of power. If you point is that we must be sure that consent exists, then I agree. The laws can be created to ensure that each party is truly consentual rather than banning the practice outright. It is simply your opinion that restricting "undesirable" behaviour is in the best interest of society. In my opinion the maximizing individual liberties is in the best interest of society. I disagree. It is a discrimminatory practice and is unjustified. It is simply an artificat of traditional taboos.

Tay-Sachs Disease: If both parents are genetic carriers, there is a 25% chance of the child having the disease. How is it we don't ban these carriers from having sex?

That is a moral determination. Why shouldn't morals be left to individuals to decide? What if you don't intend to have kids? No procreation is risk free, even those between non-related parties. What is the determination point at which we decide that the risk is "acceptable" or "unacceptable", and should it be the state that makes that determination or individuals? I don't know what their motivations are either any more than I understand why one man wants to have sex with another man, but I'm pretty sure their motivations are none of my business.

Let't take it as a fact that there is a significant genetic risk to kids from incest. The state if it wants to ban genitic risks, needs to do it consistently and not discrimminatorily. There may be a more significant risk of two carriers of a recessive genitic deficiency passing it on to their kids. The state should then ban that too, under the same guise as incest. In fact it should then ban any intercourse which may has the risk of passing on genetic deficiencies to kids and not single out incest. Also, what happens if there is no or very small risk of kids? Birth control and abortion has made that possible. Should it then be allowed? Face it the only reason incest is banned, is the the same reason homesexual marriage was banned. It is based upon ancient taboos which really don't have a place in the modern world.

I think that you summed up the argument perfectly here. I couldn't add anything to make the point more clear. You guys have ignored everything that's been stated haven't you? Should we also set a minimium price for steel, energy, and other raw materials, so that mafactureres pay a "fair" price, just in case the seller is so desperate they sell it for too low a price? I have no patience to repeat the entire argument for those who's view is so narrow that they refuse to see the complete picture.

Between consenting adults, I can't see that it should be the government's business who anyone sleeps with or gets married to. Besides "moral" grounds, what is the objection to poligamy or insest?

sideshow, you have again neglected to address the key issue I put forward. I will put it forward for the third time and request a response. Without one, I will assume you cannot address the key issue and only wish to skirt it. Here it is again: People both on welfare and off welfare do it all the time. They just do it illegally. It's called working under the table. For example a mother may not be able to take a minimium wage job outside her home because she has her own kids to look after. Should she be able to offer her own services as a babysitter for $5/hour looking after other kids? People do this all the time. What I'm pointing out to you is that for this mother the job benifit is more than $5/hour. It is also the beneift of being able to stay home with her own child. Yes I agree with you. The government regulates much of our lives. But that is just a statement of fact, not a justification of why it should be so. It would be seem your justification is "the government regulates so much already, so they should regulate this too". A pretty weak argument IMO. With this one statement you have shown all the contraditions in your own argument. You have previously stated that employers will pay as little as possible. Now you concede that even in areas where employers previously paid the minimium, they sometimes in fact do pay higher. Why do you think that is given your previous statement that they are not "exploiting" the fact that they can legally pay a lower wage. Since you concede that it is becoming a "non-issue", then doesn't that mean minimium wage legislation is also a "non-issue". So if it is a "non-issue", why do you care about removing such a minimium? Your argument at this point is full of holes. I don't know how much economic theory you have taken, but if you have, you are ignoring a lot of it. The consumer is not one person. There is not a single magic price that a consumer would pay. Consumer demand follows a curve. Some people will be willing to pay an artificially high price. The price is artificial because the government by intefering with the price of labour will also affect the price at which the supplier is willing to offer the goods for. Artificially high prices are bad for the supplier of the resource (labour), the employer, and ultimately the consumer. I don't really have the patience to explain to you why, but basic economics should tell you that this is true. The risk for the employee is not the same as for the employer. For the employee who is being paid every two weeks, his only risk is the maximium two weeks of labour he has expended and not yet been paid. The employee is never guaranteed a long term income stream. Neither is the employer, however also the employer also has invested capital (usually substantial) which is at risk. Business failure is common so the loss of invested capital is a real and substantial risk. I have said from the start that the employee faces some risk, but it is far outweighed by the risk of the employer. Clearly you lack business experience and you are speaking from ignorance. Have you ever started your own business, worked in a start-up, acted as a financial officer or operating officer? I'm concluding that your view of the business world is based upon your lack of experience in it. Hmm another weak argument. "The majority must support it so that must make it right.." Perhaps you misunderstand the examples. Of course in society as-is trades people, models, aren't working for less than minimium wage because they aren't allowed to. When I speak of learning a trade, I mean learning a trade skill. Let me expand further. I have a full time office job, however I would like to acquire some skills in home renovation such as plumbing, so as to be more handy at home. I would like to apprentice myself to a professional plumber on weekends. To make it inducing to the plumber I would offer to work for free or $2/hour to get the experience. BTW, this is not a made up example. I would really do this but am prevented from doing so for a lot of different reasons including minimium wage rules. As for the existing wealthy, they already do so. It is called volunteering. Heard of it? How do you know? Why people want to take the job is irrelevant. For as many examples which you give, which you deem "unacceptable", I can give examples which are "acceptable" and reasonable. You have not shown why you or the government on your behalf should be the custodian of what is an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" motivation. The market. Again your response displays a startling lack of basic economic theory. The employer cannot unilateraly set the price of labour. If they could we'ed all be working for $1/hour or less. The greed works both ways. The employer's "greeds" dictates that he get the lowest price for the labour, the emplolyee's "greed" dictates that he get the highest possible price for his labour.

That is only an assumption on your part. It may also be true that by abolishing minimium wage would move people off welfware. How you ask? At least some of the employable people on welfare are probably there because they cannot get even a minimium wage job. By eliminating the minimium wage, more sub-minimium wage jobs would be offered, allowing those on welfare to work, thus offsetting part if not all the cost of welfare. Who sets this expectation? Is it not society? If it is societys' expectation, shouldn't society pay the price, not the employer? It is not up to you or anyone else to decide what a product is worth. That determination is made by what the consumer is willing to pay for. It seems to me devoid of any basic economics to conclude that the worth of the product is based upon the labour. Sometimes it is worth more, sometimes it is worth less. You are ignorig the fact that employers too have choices. If as the employer I deem the cost of labour too high for me to produce a viable product, I can: 1. Use labour where labour is cheaper. 2. Use alternatives to labour (eg automation) 3. Not produce the product at all. 4. Pass on the cost to the consumer. You seem to think that employers are forced to use labour and can always pass on the cost to the consumer. Being an employer is about risk and reward. They take risk if the risk pays off expect reward. Frequently the risk doesn't pay off and so they go bankrupt. Frequently even when not bankrupt they pay themselves no wage in order to grow the business in the hope of future rewards. So your assumption that they would not pay themselves less than minimium wage is devoid of a factual basis. If you want to compare compensation between employer and employee, you should also compare the risk. In most case the risk to the employee is small or none. In your comments you neglected to address a key point of the argument. I will restate it for you: So what you are saying is that there are only two kinds of jobs, ones that offer a sense of satisfaction and ones undertaken for suvival. You are saying that there is no possibility that I may undertake a job and give up partially monetary compensation in order to increase my level of job satisifaction? That's what your saying right? How about if I'm retired, and I like looking after kids for a couple of hours a day it gives me job satisifaction. Can I charge $2 hour to defray my expenses or is that not allowed in your world? Let me list a few other examples for you: 1. As a trade I may build up experience and learning. I am willing to take a low wage job because to me the experience I get is more valuable than the pay. 2. I may already have a means of survival (existing wealth or another job) and am taking the job part-time because I enjoy it. 3. I may enjoy the prestge of the job (eg being a model) or any other benefits and may value it over monetary compensation. In your examples above, I doubt that a drug addicted prostitute would give a damn about minimium wage laws, however hopefully you see that there are multiple circumstances where labour can and should be offered below a threshold. No, who said they won't take a job for 6 bucks an hour? They aren't even offered a job at 6 bucks an hour because their skills are only worth 3 bucks an hour. What your doing is preventing them from taking $3/hour jobs which are in line with the worth of their skills.

So, would you support that the welfare program should be made vastly more restrictive than it is? For example an employable person would not be eligible except for a small transitional period? As it is now, virually everyone is eligible for welfare for an indefinite period. I'll agree with you that it should be taken out of the equation when it isn't an available choice for the employable. Maybe it shouldn't be, but the reality today is that it is. You seem to ignore the fact that people make logical choices. Despite what your intended use of welfare, its availbility sets a bottom threshold for wages. If the choice is between a job which pays less than welfare and welfare, common senses says that that worker shoudl be on welfare. That is not what I would call "abuse of welfare", it is simply a rational choice. Moving back to the discussion on minimium wage. There is a market price for labour. That market price is set by how much an employer is willing to offer for that labour and how much an individual is willing to accept. Where the market price is higher than the minimium wage, the miminium wage is irrelevant. However, if the market price is lower than the minimium wage, then that itself is proof that the labour is "worth" less than minimium wage. The real question is if society feels it is inhumane that an individual survives on such a low wage, why does it impose the obligation to make up the difference upon the employer? Why is this not an obligation of society in general? Do you think it should be illegal for a company to offer volunteer positions, afterall these are jobs with no pay? Do you think that there are other reasons a person might accept to exchange their labour other than for monitary gain? Do you not see that as much as minimium wage legislation poses limitation on employers, it also imposes limitations on employees in that it restricts their ability to accept certain jobs? Since CA has kindly pointed you to instructions on how to use the quote feature, can you reciprocate by showing how to use the spell feature. I know I've been looking for it for a while. Thanks

You make the statement that welfare is not 100% accessable and poorly managed. So how accessable is it? Is it 98% or only 10% accessable. If it is 98%, are you advocating that minimium wage legislation be put in place to catch the 2% who don't have access to welfare? If your point is that deficiencies in the welafare system are the reason we have minimium wage legislation, then doesn' it make more sense to resolve those deficiencies rather than advocate solutions such as minimium wage which impose a burden on employer. Without explicitly saying so, you seem to accept that welfare is an alternative to very low wages. Would it make you more comfortable if we renamed welfare "minimium guaranteed income" and it replaced minimium wage leglislation? But you can't take welfare out of the equation! An economic sytem depends upon people making the best choice among available choices. Welfare is one of those choices. It makes no more sense to take it out of the equation than to state, "But taking all higher paying jobs out of the equation". ----- It would be apprecited if you can learn to use quotes properly. Your responses to multiple posters are difficult to read otherwise. Thanks

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare? hate to play the devils advocate, but we have homelss people now that do not collect it. And? are you saying that they are instead working for minimium wage or any wage?

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare?

Yes they should even be free to offer the job which pays nothing if they so choose. I may take such a job because I receive intangible non-monetary benefits (such as prestege, or job enjoyment) which to me are enough compensation. In an environment in which there is limited employment prospects, the prospective employee is free to move to areas where he has a better market for his labour. Thanks. I welcome you to the 21st.

Explain why.

Why is profit even relevant? An employer should be free to offer a wage for which he thinks the labour is worth regardless of whether that employer is profitable or not. Should we grant exemptions to unprofitable companies so that they can pay rates under minimium wage?

Since welfare is the bottom line below which it is not economic to work, why bother with a minimium wage at all? If no one will accept a job which pays less than what they would get on welfare, a defacto minimum wage is established without having to impose one.

Since governments believe that legislating a minimium wage is a way to eliminate poverty, perhaps they should enact legislation that every business generates an ROI of at least 10%. That way they can eliminate business bankrupicies and ensure each business is profitable.

If you can have slavery without coericion then yes it should be legal. I'm not being sarcastic of course.

As I've said, I don't care one way or another but let's do it consistently. Yes in some cases the individual is the basic unit. Yet in others in the family is the unit. For welfare, family income is considered, not an individuals, similary for many benefits and deductions. By all means. You family can include all the people in your block or your city if you can all agree to be so considered.

It should either be taxed one way or the other. This fuzzy proposal which proposal which taxes based upon individual income but has only very specific case of allowing "family" income will be discrimminatory to many other situations. If you want to argue that taxing family income is the way to go, fine, but then use family as the basic fiscal unit of income taxation and not the indivdual. Also, let filers self-define who is or isn't included in their family.

Why stop there? What about a couple who is not living together? Who defines what a couple is? Can a father-son who are not liivng together decide to share income? If they do, is it the government's business? Why is your definition of "equal" any better than the one CA put forward? There are many examples in life where the whole freaking bill is devided by the number of payors.

There is a ready-made free market solution to the problem of students not having enough cash to finance their education. It is the same problem an entrepreneur has when he has the potential but not the financing. I recall reading a story where a student auctioned shares in himself to finance educations. Each share bought a slice of his future earnings. He obviously didn't auction off 100% of his future earnings, as he both needed funds to survive, and if he auctioned 100% of his future earnings, he would have no incentive to succeed. Here's the benefits of this approach: 1. It encourages students to undertake a financially productive course of study. A degree which will not lead to future earnings, will not raise much money and is thus discouraged. 2. The course of study, and the students skills and character will all factor into an investor's decision to provide capital to this student. It both encourages students to carefully consider their course of study, and their behaviour. 3. No additional public funding is requred.

Hang on now, nothing in margrace's post suggest that she went to a fianancial advisor who reviewed her income and expected future income and advised her that RRSPs were the right vehicle. I expect that she was subject to the same general RRSP advertising the rest of us are, and based upon her own analysis decided to invest in RRSPs. Financial products are advertised all the time. Does that mean they are right for everyone? Obviously not.