for a military to protect the U.S. and it's borders. That said, it
allows a lot of flexibility as to what 'right' and 'wrong' mean for its
citizens, and no where is there a proviso for fair working conditions or
morality.
All federal legislation has to with the perceived needs of large
interests, be they with corporations, the military, civic or religious
groups, etc. None of these groups necessarily have a 'moral' message or
are really interested in social justice. Things like the minimum wage,
the concept of the poverty line, public health initatives, social
security, welfare, regulations on industry, etc. are a result of the
actions of such interests, where large numbers of people came together
to promote a cause they felt was complimentary to their interests.
'Right' and 'wrong' are concepts we use to judge the outcomes of such
legislation. I happen to believe it is right to have a minimum wage,
because it promotes a multi-tiered economy and increases wages overall.
Other interests believe this is anti-business, anti-free market, and
opposed to economic theories that have served us well in the past. But
neither side is right here, and judgement on the outcomes of either side
is purely subjective.
The thing that worries me about this situation is that large interests
do not respond quickly enough to changes in the public environment, for
instance, in the case of large numbers of undocumented workers in the
U.S. No one speaks for them except groups who benefit from the cheap
labor. These groups speak to their own interests, and (given the nature
of U.S. politics) someone eventually is going to have to stand up and
speak to their interests. That dialogue promises to be a very sad one,
given the shaky citizenship status on the part of many migrant workers.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:25 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
I'm not a U.S. History or politics buff, but I'm sure it is in there
somewhere. What I said is that the government has a responsibility to
do
this. While I may not know every piece (or any piece) of legislation, I
do
know morality. The government does have a moral obligation to prevent
companies from abusing it's employees. Work conditions, salaries,
monopolies... there are laws to regulate all of these things in order to
prevent greed and economics from getting in the way of ethics. Not that
it
doesn't still happen, but I think that every citizen who pays taxes has
a
right to expect the government to protect them from any corporation that
might attempt to muscle them. Don't you?
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 January 2004 15:49
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>but the government has a responsibility to step-in and draw the line
somewhere
Does it? Where in the constitution is this laid out? I must have
missed
that part.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:45 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
because there's nothing preventing companies from abusing workers'
rights
to
a decent standard of living. Some money is better than none, and
there
will
always be somebody out there who will do the work for less. I'm not
saying
companies should pay premium prices for everything, but the government
has
a
responsibility to step-in and draw the line somewhere. That line is
based
on inflation, current cost of living, etc.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 January 2004 15:37
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
Im for a business saying to a prospective worker, will you do this
job
for
x
dollars per year? and i am for the worker saying no, I will do it
for y
dollars a year. And then the company decides to either, hire the
worker
or
look for another worker. I am not for removing the protections that
we
in
the US enjoy as workers, I am saying that in a market economy a
minimum
wage
is not needed, that the minimum acceptable wage for a job will be
determined
by the person willing to work for that price. what is so wrong with
that?
-----Original Message-----
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:30 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
So you are for Monopolies, Racism and discrimination?
-Gel
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Fair market value should be decided between the parties involved
in
the
trade
I couldnt agree more.
-----Original Message-----
From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who decides what's fair? Why should it be the government? Most
elected
officials, hell most GS employees I know, have never had a real job.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/25/2003
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
