hello

So far ten states have passed higher wages since January: Delaware to $8.25 an hour; West Virginia to $8.75; Rhode Island to $9; Michigan to $9.25; Minnesota to $9.50; Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maryland to $10.10; Vermont to $10.50; and Massachusetts to $11 an hour. They’re not alone: 22 states have wage floors above the federal minimum. The city of Seattle has gone even further, implementing a $15 wage.
While some warn that raising the minimum wage is a job killer, states that have taken action aren’t finding that to be true. Those whose wages increased on January 1 are experiencing faster job growth than the others. State minimum wage increases over the past two decades haven’t had an impact on job creation. Washington, which has the highest current minimum wage, experienced the biggest increase in small business jobs last year and has seen steady, above average job growth in the 15 years since it raised its wage.

I cannot agree that there is significant "upward mobility" in the United Stares or in Canada. The overwhelming majority of corporate managers and officers continue to be white males from middle class or wealthy backgrounds. I would rather live here than in Venezuela or Cuba, too. (I see you have chosen your examples carefully.) But that others have it worse is not evidence that people here uniformly have it good. That's a specious argument. My last two sentences were a response to your comment about authoritarian and proscriptive governments. That was complete non sequitur. Once again, i made no appeal to any particular method to increase economic opportunity.

I believe economic mobility in North America is likely greater than in most of the world.

I appreciate that response, George.

Whether or not the capitalistic/free enterprise system will be quite the success you seem to think it to be...is still in question as far as I am concerned. It certainly is not the near certainty that some, perhaps you, seem to consider it.

Here in America...our system has been running with an incredible advantage...an entire continent rich in potential and resources to use. Food production has not been a problem...but that may well have less to do with the economic system in place than with the abundant land available for cultivation.

Ores and minerals and forests are here...and were here for exploitation in abundance also.

Whether a more tempered system than capitalism could have worked this into as much "wealth" as has happened under the system now in place (or more)...is still in question. Whether or not a more tempered system could have allowed the great wealth created to be more widely AND FAIRLY distributed also is still in question.

Labor, in my opinion, has been short changed in the equation. Land has nothing to gain. Capital and entrepreneurship seem to have harvested the bulk of the gains...and that mostly happens because of the ability, under our system, for the capital and entrepreneurship to EXPLOIT labor in the system now in place. (Only an opinion, and I respect the right of intelligent, well-intentioned people to differ with me on that).

As I said earlier...the system I think will have to come into being will more easily come from the socialistic side making accommodations with the capitalistic side...rather than the other way around. If I am correct, this will put countries like China in better position than we are in.

We will see. The next few decades will be very important...and both sides will be battling with the influences of the technological impact on the matter.

Who will fare better is by no means settled.

In essence my proposition is that over time "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action, almost always achieve better results than those designed by some ambitious and even well-intentioned rule maker, and that the reasons for this are found in the nature of human beings.

The title and your theater contradict each other, Blat.

I believe that progressives too often fail to acknowledge the degree to which autonomy and local rule must be sacrificed to apply their “solutions” , and fail as well to foresee or deal with the side effects they bring with the human nature they cannot change.

Many (not all) religions recognize these elementary traits of human nature – they’re about influencing human behavior, not controlling it

You know I am not up to this ****.

You also know you are.

Any chance you can stop trying to borrow wives or daughters...and expressing anxiety over ex-wives brassieres...

...and make the argument I am too lazy (and intellectually ill-equipped) to do?

Jesus, i get tired of that "freedom" BS.

It's a 'reference' provided by UC Berkeley. Unless you're able to refute those references with your own credible sources, I'll rely on UC Berkeley over your personal opinion.

This link is to a short interview promo by Heritage. Meese's contention here (it's a contemporary PR narrative by the GOP) is that the Obama administration is the most lawless in US history. http://dailysign.al/1sdIdny Listen to it if you like but there's nothing in what he says that you haven't heard before, many times.

The thing is, of course, that Meese was the AG during the Iran/Contra period and that he resigned when he came under investigation for his complicity in that mess of illegality and lying to Congress. You might wonder how people get this ******* stupid and I don't know.

Iran Contra was peanuts compared to the IRS capers. We used enemy #1 's
s money to fund action against enemy #2. Sounds like a good idea to me. We sold Iran obsolete Phoenix missiles for use as air-to-air weapons on the F-14s the Shah had purchased earlier, through an Israeli broker, at grossly inflated prices and used the proceeds to fund the Contras. The missiles involved could never have been used against us as we had the ability to detonate their warheads remotely.