Neo

1). If they did something wrong, they're criminally prosecuted. If not, there's no beef. There is no veil for criminal behavior. There is redress economically and criminally. What else should we "go with"? 2). While I don't call Chip keeping his own money a tax "cut" that Chip "gets", I'll address the comment. The Chip tax you're referring to more effectively transfers wealth to Bob. I agree if we're talking about taxes, and not minimum wages. Neither stimulates. Stimulus puts money that's not currently in an economy into said economy. Our kids pay it back. Taxes move money around. She may not hire a worker, but she'll do something with it. Even "doing nothing" is money either saved or invested, which adds capital to the employing entities. Bank savings are lent. I guess she could put the money in a mattress, but don't think that's your argument. What happens to the watchmaker and her employees? Lastly, if Tina gets tax incentives for doing nothing, I'd look at the government that made that decision. I think that's my point. Seems like $10,000 was collected and put to no good use.

I did re-read and see a reference to "hard working types". Thank you.

Ha!

Grateful.

Paraphrasing Uncle Rico: "There's a lot you don't know about Auntie."

Don't laugh at me. If Matthews signs overseas and plays professionally, is his draft status unchanged? Secondly, assuming it is, would an eventual move to the NHL be subject to an inter-league agreement? KHL-ish?

I am a conservative, generally republican, fellow. NSA spying is not an Obama invention. I used to see the world traditionally. Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative. I now see more of a continuum in a circle for some issues. Regarding spying, the far right approaches the far left if you call libertarians the far right.

Whole hearted agreement. Power influences outcomes, whether it's in numbers or dollars. I'm a HUGE founding fathers guy. They saw the risk of concentrated power and separated government into branches. They articulated inalienable rights which would stand regardless of the power attacking them. They didn't have an exposure to the concentrated power of big business, however. Fortunately, or frustratingly, their flexible constitution has mechanisms to deal with this come lately entity. I would be interested in a conversation among Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. with regard to "big business".

LOl, yes indeed. I've been happy with my Fords! Insight. I don't view the shareholders as criminals. I don't see knowledge or intent. Criminal is a word of rigor. Negligence? Case by case. Public company shareholder negligence? Good gracious. I share point two, but still mull the word "rights" for corporate entities. It's a concept I've considered, but not to the extent of individual rights.

Well, thank heavens you can't litigate the shareholders. They did nothing wrong. Would you sue my aunt, the retired postal worker, if Ford made a car that exploded? The 100,000 other aunts? You can sue (your litigate) the company and, if you prevail, the shareholders suffer economically, dollar for dollar, pro rata. You can prosecute criminal activity, to the extent it exists in your scenario, and, if you prevail, responsible people are convicted, fined and/or sentenced. Yes, dollar for dollar. A $100 award costs the shareholders $100.

Piercing the veil. Agreed, an example of laws handled differently. Rights? I'll have to think. Aren't the consequences of the wrong borne by the corporation and, by extension, by its owners? Jail time notwithstanding. However, criminal corporate activity usually has consequences for the employees involved. In other words, the liability implications for non corporate assets are veiled. The corporate assets (owned pro rata by individuals) are not veiled.

Can we say they're both excellent and no proof exists as to which is better? In that case, we'll all bring personal observation and assessment to a message board. I like it! I like all of your views. I hold none of you to the "prove it" standard.

I hope I'm not seen as pro business over being pro people. You tell me. I am 100% pro people and recognize limited but inalienable rights for them and for me, by extension. I extend the right of individual people to the businesses they choose to form. I've always seen businesses as simply collections of people. Businesses have power when they're large. That is, when they represent large numbers of people or a large amount of their economic power. Random example #1: UAW vs. Ford. My uncle who is a UAW member (person in a group of people) works for Ford (person in a group of people) where Ford's owned by my aunt (retired postal worker whose retirement plan owns Ford stock). When I consider my uncle's job and compensation, I see his buddies. When I read of the compensation's implication for Ford's profit and taxes, I see the value of my aunt's pension. I acknowledge the courts interpret individual and corporate "rights" differently. They must. However, I'm most at ease when they keep the individual in context. The outcomes can be different. For instance, a corporation must keep and in some ways subordinate some individual rights to the extent that they do not represent the whole of ownership. I'll let the constitutional scholars inform me on the role of the courts with regard to corporate rights. I may not be being thoughtful, but I'm not immediately aware of a right business has that you and I do not. Scholars, lawyers, inform me! I am pro business because some group of people chose to so organize. Here's to ethical self interest!

Fish Fries! You bastard.

Oh, yes! The finest in the land .... I make jokes. I like Tampa. Nothing I've found, though, beats the small town restaurant quality of Buffalo ...

We have many places here in Tampa. You know, chains that serve Buffalo Wings, with ranch dressing .... I am near tears ....

1). YES! 2). NO!! For a moment, I thought we'd turned you ..... Tomorrow's another day.

I was clumsy and unclear. I understand, agree with, and believe the Stiglitz point and thank you for bringing it up. I was clumsy in saying this part. The real gap between minimum wage then and now should be large because the real skill gap between skilled and unskilled jobs is greater today. Before I get lumped with the meanies, allow me to say this. I'm not happy this is the case, don't feel the unskilled are lazy, and am not looking for more to fail so I can succeed.

I've missed the implications about lazy poor people. I'll go back and look. The Minimum Wage hasn't kept up with the growth in income. It has kept up with the gap in skill between Minimum Skill Required jobs and More Skill Required jobs.

I'm a conservative. I don't want either. I don't know a single conservative that wants either, let alone both. We want the same but our routes to what we want and progressive routes to the same are different. Our choice of paths is built around our assessment of the probability of successful outcomes and a commitment to individual choice recognizing different choices lead to different outcomes. You can't out compassion me. I can't out compassion you. An economy and social system that produces more unskilled adults, limits their career choices to dipping fries or digging ditches, and then says let's pay 'em $40 grand to ease the pain of their trap isn't remotely compassionate to me. A nation that produces economic indentured servants and let's them rent an apartment, with cable and food, is a sad failure in my mind. Your mind, too, I'll guess. The way out, though, isn't paying more of the trapped $40 grand. Fix the illness, and you won't have to worry about finding more medicine. I don't want trapped people wasting away. Handouts (no perjorative to those extending their hands, just like I would) that subsidize failed policy and bad choices make no sense to me as a matter of priority. I have great faith in people. What I'm about to say can't be accomplished overnight. We've spent 2 1/2 generations creating a culture of government dependency. Reversing it slowly or quickly will cause pain to the trapped slowly or quickly. I ask myself "what would I like to see and how long will I wait?". A reasonable set of goals might be a reversal of the growth rate of the trapped, followed by a plateau and the beginning of a trend down. I'd wait a generation for that (20 years) and can envision it if public policy, kindly and gently, begins addressing it today. In a forum such as this, I'd never be able to thoroughly outline how I'd address it. You can guess my agenda and you'd likely be largely right. It involves personal responsibility (a burden the vast majority can bear), consequence of choice (good and bad) and families preparing children for adulthood. That's a formula that's worked since God or a primordial soup created man. I don't want to tinker with what I call fundamental aspects of our humanity. Hell, I don't think we can tinker! I'm all for government that provides that structure and a safety net for those who are truly unable thrive (a very small proportion of human beings if you define unable to thrive as limitations unique to themselves and not a function of their choices or what society's taken from them). There are tens of millions, today, that can't thrive in that model. That's my acknowledgement. Shame on us for building it. The real debate is how much do you want to change, how quickly, and at what pain to those we've trapped.

I think you've said it all for your view as opposed to mine.

Do you believe there are any jobs where a living wage NOT due? Serious question. If I give you forty hours, earnestly, I'm due a wage that supports me. If yes, is the wage one necessary to support a family? Tangent: I've always believed conservatives have more faith in people than progressives. When I hear "what if he can't" I say "I'm confident he will". We have some common ground, here. I don't consider the function of minimum wage / minimum skill jobs to be to support people. They're entry level, there to supplement income while skills are still being developed. Our society produces more and more unskilled, and then looks to the wage to solve the problem. Mask it or solve it. Overpaying someone, regardless of the good intention, taxes someone else and develops nothing for us all. But, ah, the solution ....

I appreciate the "revisit your request" response. "Careful whatcha ask for, boy ..."!

Which corner and can you point me to it?

I am so looking forward to this Game of Thrones!