70% of jobs added this year part time.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by surfn1080, Aug 6, 2013.

  1. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,535
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,617

    What? You must be confusing Mexico with Puerto Rico. PR is a commonwealth of the US; Mexico is a soveirgn nation. Of course there's going to be a difference in how product from Mexico to Texas is treated, vs. from Oklahoma to Texas, or between/amongst the states (and/or commonwealths), vs. from one soverign nation to another--notwithstanding how slack we've been in enforcing the border.
  2. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    You realize what NAFTA is, right? No tarriffs. No duties. No controls on capital movement. Outside of a potential brief inspection at the border for illegal smuggling (which also happens when moving goods between certain states) and a short form saying who you are and ascertaining that the goods came completely from Mexico, the government doesn't at all interfere in the movement of goods between Mexico and the US.
  3. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,535
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,617
    Yes, I'm aware of NAFTA. It's not completely free of 'controls', and doesn't apply to all products. More importantly however, is that Mexico is not part of the Union, and therefore not subject to the commerce clause of the USC, which all states are.

    Either way, none of that has anything to do with labor. Just 'product'. NAFTA didn't create a right to work amongst foreign nationals that supercedes immigration law, nor does it by way of analogy to 'free markets'. The markets can be 'free', without the labor being freely transferable. That wasn't part of the NAFTA deal.
  4. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,440
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,809
    94% of all business that falls under the employer mandate, already insure their full-time workers.
  5. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,616
    Comparison not getting any less absurd. If there were no constitutional guarantee against it, CT and TX could and would do that. Capitalism does not implicitly require a state abdicating any interest or scrutiny into who does or does not lawfully reside therein, it is just... a gobsmackingly ridiculous non sequitur.
  6. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    Free market capitalism is actually borne out of the realm of keeping governments out of markets as much as possible. The fact is that you don't actually want free markets in all markets. Free markets are not defined as "things Michi likes." It has a definition based upon a lack of government controls:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free market

    Tell me what immigration controls are if not a government regulation? Again, the fact that you like that regulation does not make it not a regulation.
  7. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    It does apply to all products entirely originating in another NAFTA country.

    The capital market can be free without the labor market being free. However, the "markets" as a whole can't be free as long as there is a massive government control in the labor market. Trust me, it is okay to say you aren't really for free markets in all situations, including in the labor market.
  8. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    First, I didn't talk about companies that already have 50+, but the companies that are close to 50 and will not hire more because of the extra cost to do so.

    Second, Any worker that is part time is not required to offer insurance. Sooo now we have many part time workers.
  9. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,616
    This conflation of ideas is just... nothing short of insipid, I can't treat it with more than nominal courtesy. The "Billy Madison" video would even fall short.

    Capitalism is not inimical to the barest threshold of national sovereignty, the most meager of all notions of the state, that it has defined boundaries and the inherent lawful authority to say who can and can't be there. seriously, without those two traits as settled and unambiguous facts, you don't even *have* a country. Yet, capitalism having been articulated, and classical liberalism and individualism and the Enlightenment all been articulated during the state era, any idea that the existence of the state or its sovereign legal authority over borders and immigration is contrary evaporates.

    And the notion is all the less dignified for its arch and naked strawman value -- "oh, any real capitalist would be all for open borders and our modern day de facto slave trade". No. There is no contradiction between wanting foreign workers and business and commerce to come here and American workers, business, and commerce to go there, and the sovereign entities involved still reserving the right to note, record, and approve of the persons and products involved.
  10. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    Sorry you don't like the definition of free markets.

    Speaking of conflation of ideas, statehood as you are defining it and capitalism are not even close to the same things. Free market capitalism and statehood can co-exist, but as we expand markets beyond the borders of nations, declaring a form of international capitalism (the existence of tariffs would not be in any way a violation of national-based capitalism, explaining why "free market" countries often had very large tariffs), we really can't claim that this International Economic System is actually "free market" or "capitalist" until governments give up the right to dictate who gets to live and work where.

    The United States would not have been an interstate free market if they declared that New York could decide that they would not accept products or workers from Virginia.

    BTW, outside of your capability of using highly loaded words ("slave trade?"), there really isn't much to the quoted post. Certainly not much in terms of a logical argument. Mainly just a conflation of the state and capitalism, which is really only applicable before we decided that free markets also required the free movement of goods and capital overall across borders (with reciprocation in certain instances of course). A free market can not truly be free without the free movement of labor. So while we can be a free market within the US, we are not truly engaging in a "free market" international economy until such time as national governments give up their ability to control the movement of people, in every way except the most nominal forms of public safety (ie. you can't leave the state while on probation).
  11. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,616
    I don't like intellectual fraud committed against the language, such as your fatuous, false definition of free markets. Your premise is that there is no capitalism without anarchy, basically, and that you can say it with a straight face and no shame says... a lot. You are trying to bootstrap an amnesty/open border load of crap as a tenet of capitalism.

    I will lay it out simply -- basic border and immigration sovereignty is not a form of economic protectionism. Not much worth talking about if you are going to act as though they are.



    Yes, more robust than at any point in American history. More people in de facto slavery than at any point in American history. The product of willful blindness toward illegal immigration. But that is neither here nor there.

    Just a load of nonsense, no finer point to put on it. You are again setting ridiculous terms that the bare threshold of national sovereignty is antithetical to capitalism. I mean, how can individuals trade with other freely, since each of them has skin and rights against battery and trespass? That is what your argument is, just at a national level.
  12. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    I committed intellectual fraud against the language by linking to the dictionary definition? And here I thought the dictionary was what defined words within the language. Do you have a better source of word definitions than the dictionary?

    A free market, by definition, permits governments to ensure the lack of monopoly. Most free market theorists would also include some form of legal protection against the use of actual force. Beyond that, true free market theorists see no role of government in the economy as beneficial. Not Anarchy, but certainly very limited.

    So you wouldn't say a country that is engaging in a policy in which the importation of lets say automobiles is allowed only under certain very extensive conditions, is engaging in protectionism? Why should restricting the movements of automobiles, a form of capital, be theoretically handled in a different manner than labor in a determination of whether a policy is protectionist? They have very similar economic effects, at least according to rational economics.

    Slavery requires the ability to use force. What is the force being used here? Is it based on physical size? Being armed better? Or is it based on the law? So you are arguing that we should continue with a non-free market policy because engaging in that non-free market policy has led to people being coerced? That is some serious circular logic.


    If you consider that the bare threshold of national sovereignty, then a true international free market is indeed antithetical to this form of national sovereignty. Just as a true international free market can't have the government decide what good are allowed in and out of the country, the implementation of a true international free market would also necessitate the government getting out of the way of the free labor market. Anything short of that is simply a partially control economy, in which the government allows the free movement of capital but not labor.
  13. philnotfil
    Offline

    philnotfil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    12,911
    Likes Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +850
    An interesting look into the increase of part time jobs.

    aei-ideas.org

  14. corpgator
    Offline

    corpgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +792
    You're wasting your breath.
  15. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,842
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,870
    That's just how businesses work. They are in business to maximize their profits. But, the reason their profits are so high is because businesses are doing more with less people. And the reason for less people is because of Obama-scam.

    It's really simple if you know anything at all about how businesses really work.
  16. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +971
    If a business can do more with less people, wouldn't it do so without having to provide healthcare? We do still require compensation for work in this country. So why would the business make this choice due to healthcare rather than simply making it as a profit maximizing choice to act more efficiently?

Share This Page