BLAST FROM THE PAST: RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. Pt 1.

With the debate over raising the Federal Minimum Wage becoming more contentious, opinions both Pro and Con, are coming fast and furious.  Politicians, Economists, Historians and members of the Media are pulling no punches, portraying the opposition as irrational and out of touch with the realities of Modern Economic Theory.

However, are there certain things we can know regardless of what is said by either side?  Yes, and that is where we must start, in finding the solution that has the greatest positive impact on our National Economy, and the Quality of Life for every American.

Question #1-  Will raising the Minimum Wage to $10.10/HR  from the now Federal Minimum of $7.25 result in the loss of thousands of Jobs?

Before I discuss that question directly, we must look at one topic that seems to be constantly ignored, yet lies at the heart of the question;

LAYING OFF EMPLOYEES MAY ELIMINATE THE TOTAL # OF JOBS, BUT IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR COMPANIES TO REMAIN PROFITABLE.  FEWER WORKERS DOES NOT MEAN FEWER GOALS/RESULTS THAT MUST BE MET.

Historically, when lay-offs have occurred, it was because the amount of work that needed to be done had decreased.  The # of employees was too high to justify, in terms of profits, the amount of work that was being done at the time.  This is basic economics:  Hire more to match increased work load, or lay- off because of decreased work load.

However, those who object to increasing the Federal Minimum Wage, are not able to use this line of reasoning. The production numbers are still there to meet consumer demand, whether it is Cooking Meals, Delivering Goods, Retail Sales etc.

Those who oppose raising the Minimum Wage are left with only this-  That the cost of these pay increases cannot be absorbed by businesses, in that they will lower profits to an unmanageable level to keep companies economically viable.

Is this true? Look for part two.

BLAST FROM THE PAST. SELF-DEFENSE, AND STAND-YOUR GROUND LAWS. PT 1.

The recent courtroom verdicts in Florida have brought to light an often misunderstood part of the U.S. Criminal Justice System.  This is the concept of Self-Defense, which is basically any physical act a potential victim uses against an attacker to prevent them from harming the individual or another. 

This action is used to justify any injury suffered by the assailant, holding the potential victim blameless.

This is not as straight forward as it seems. (Especially when we consider Stand- Your Ground Laws). 

The problem is that there are principles in law that are not applied uniformly, and may differ depending on the State, Locality or Jurisdiction. 

However, there are a few concepts that seem to be universally applied;
-  Much more discretion is given to the victim if they are attacked in their Home or Place of Business.

-  Generally, the claim of Self- Defense is much more credible if the Attacker is armed, with the assumption that it is more likely to lead to Catastrophic Injury or Death.

-  You can use the amount of force necessary to stop the attack, or to remove the potentiality for physical harm. However, the victim can be held liable if the Danger is eliminated, but continues to use physical force beyond neutralizing the assailants ability to cause physical injury.  

For example:  You are walking down the street, and an individual suddenly approaches you demanding money.  Pulling out a Knife, the would be Robber lunges.  However, you are able to Disarm him, and a strike to the face breaks the Attackers nose.  The Danger is now gone, and the assailant turns and runs in the opposite direction.  Up until now, everything you have done is perfectly legal...

LOOK FOR PART TWO.

Date-  3/18/2014. 

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 3.

Alright, we have Defined the Subject Matter to be Debated, and we have TWO DISTINCT OPINIONS THAT RUN CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER.  Since They both cannot be ACCURATE AND TRUE, HOW DO WE SET UP THE DEBATE TO ARRIVE AT THE MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION?

2-  WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WILL BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT, AND HOW WILL ITS ACCURACY AND INFLUENCE UPON THE SUBJECT MATTER BE MEASURED?

Remember, this is a DEBATE ABOUT SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS OR MORALITY.  ACCEPTING ONE SIDE, OR THE OTHER SIDE AS TRUE, CANNOT BE JUDGED BY POLITICAL, SOCIAL, OR ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.

If We Take the CLIMATE CHANGE/ GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION OR DEBATE AS AN EXAMPLE, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

Whether or Not the EARTHS CLIMATE IS CHANGING, AND/OR GLOBAL WARMING IS FACTUAL, DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND TRADING PRACTICES BETWEEN COUNTRIES. POSSIBLE ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL WILL NOT ALTER PAST READINGS ON TEMPERATURE CHANGE, ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA, OR WEATHER ANOMALIES.

Since We  Must Use LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO REACH CONCLUSIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING, QUALITY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY MUST BE;

-  VERIFIABLE.

-  QUANTIFIABLE.

-  TESTABLE.

-  REPRODUCIBLE.

-  FALSIFIABLE. 

PROPER CONTROLS MUST HAVE ALSO BEEN USED TO ELIMINATE THE 

POSSIBILITY OF ALTERING OR TAINTING THE RESULTS.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ARE LEFT UNTIL AFTER THE
DEBATE OR DISCUSSION HAS BEEN SETTLED, AND A VALID CONSENSUS

AGREES WITH THE FINDINGS.

Date- 11/25/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 2.

QUITE SIMPLY, BEFORE ANY REAL DISCUSSION BEGINS, THE FOLLOWING ARE NECESSARY, AND MUST BE AGREED UPON.

1-  Define the Subject to be Discussed, to the point where both sides agree.

This may seem to be COMMON SENSE, with each side knowing why They are Involved, but it is not. It's far to Easy for One Side, who find that Their Viewpoint is going down to Defeat, to Argue that the Opposition has Misrepresented or Failed to Understand the Position they are Taking.

This Isn't Difficult, unless there are Clear and Understandable Definitions that Distinctly Separate both sides of the Issue, and leave no room for Vague Interpretations about what Constitutes the Opinions being presented.

Vague and Simplistic Definitions are a sign of Intellectual Laziness, and/or a Lack of Commitment or Confidence in the Subject or Topic being Discussed or Debated.

Further, if we have an Unclear Distinction between Similar Terms, (Global Warming and Climate Change are Perfect Examples.), the Confusion to the LAY PERSON MAY MAKE UNDERSTANDING EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT.

If One Side Insists on USING ILL-DEFINED WORDS OR TERMS, AND WILL NOT ADEQUATELY PRESENT THE SUBJECT MANNER IN A CONCISE AND UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER, A DEBATE OR DISCUSSION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ANYONE, EXCEPT THOSE USING DECEPTIVE TACTICS NOT TO TEACH, EXPLAIN, OR JUSTIFY, BUT TO PUSH AN AGENDA THEY CAN'T REASONABLY DEFEND.

Agreeing to Debate or Discuss an ISSUE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD BE FOOLISH AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.  IT WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH SIDES ARE READY AND ABLE TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT IN A WAY DESIGNED TO FIND REAL ANSWERS AND SOLUTIONS. 

This, Of Course, would not be True. So, if one side DECIDES SCORING POINTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN MEANS DECEIVING AND MISLEADING THE PUBLIC, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE OPPOSITION POINT THIS OUT, AND EXPLAIN WHY A DEBATE WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. THEY NEED TO STRESS THE IRRATIONAL AND UNSCIENTIFIC TACTICS THAT WOULD DO NOTHING BUT HARM THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.