Talk-Polywell.org

How else can we compete with Chinese slave labor? And the best part no laws were violated by the Government.

===

If some members of the House of Representatives have their way, American workers will be thrown into even more direct competition with inmate labor. H.R. 2558, sponsored by Reps. McCollum (R.), Hyde (R.), and Scott (R.), would open federal prisons to contractual arrangements with for-profit corporations and allow the products produced to be sold freely on the open market.

Under the terms of the proposed law, inmates could be paid less than the minimum wage if the industrial operation in question is deemed to be in competition with foreign rather than domestic business.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/prison_labor_jun00.html

====


Since the first chain gangs were sent to work in Alabama in 1995, several other states have responded positively to the idea, and Arizona has already begun modeling the program in their own prisons. The chain gang system in Alabama not only forces prisoners to work to pay for their own imprisonment, but also establishes convict labor as a form of punishment. The 400 medium-security convicts on the chain gang, often convicted of theft or bouncing checks, are assigned to work for a 30-day period. If they receive negative reports during these 30 days, they can be assigned another 30 days. There is no limit to the amount of time a convict can be forced to remain on the chain gang if he is perceived to be disobeying the rules, regulations, or "the orders of the staff."[28] Beyond the terror of working at gunpoint for twelve hours a day, performing hard labor while constantly chained to five other men, the chain gang system in Alabama grants an extremely dangerous excess of power to the guards who can, at their own discretion, extend the duration of the prisoners' punishment.

Several prisoners have voiced protest to the return of this horrific practice. Michael Lamar Powell, a convict in Limestone Correctional Facility in Capshaw, Alabama, has been particularly aggressive in writing public statements to expose the injustices of imprisonment in Alabama and across the United States. This recent essay, "Modern Slavery: American Style," addressed the significance of the return of chain gangs in Alabama and the lack of any real criticism in the international response.

Alabama is now proving the past is not always past. Alabama has become the first state in the nation to re-institute chain gangs. However, the worst part about chain gangs in Alabama is not the young men chained together in groups of five as they urinate and defecate… not the cuts and bruises that the chains inevitably leave on the legs and ankles of the young men... the inadequate or total lack of medical treatment... the total lack of access to the courts... nor the dehumanization of these young men in chains and their abrupt return to the slavery of their ancestors. The worst part of the chain gang in Alabama is that the rest of the world rushed to see it.

...The rest of the world is jealous. They too want their own slaves. So they wait and watch so that they can do it too, so they can do it with less problems. America, the last country to outlaw slavery, now becomes the country to teach the rest of the world to enslave legally.

http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/mplu/time.html

===========

Links collected from the comments at http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/and- ... a-failure/

========

Gee I sure hope Republicans don't get branded as racists because of this. It might make it harder for them to win elections.

Especially if this sort of thing gets around: http://youtu.be/72Lf9ZQK8t0

Who will stand for decency in America if Republicans don't? But you know what I find most ironic?

Republicans: The Party Of Modern Day Slavery.

Catchy campaign slogan don't you think? Yes I do. I'm going to blog it. Just to see if I can help the Republicans along.

Everything possible needs to be done to defeat the free thinkers and the Democrats.

Inmate labor should not be permitted to compete in the free market. Inmate labor SHOULD be used to produce services or material which the State itself needs, (such as prison farms, license plates, etc.) but in no manner should it be used to compete against free citizens in the open market.

I thought that there were laws to that effect already. Chain gangs were reintroduced by a few states during the "get tough on crime" 1990s, with Alabama being the first state to revive them in 1995. The experiment ended after about one year in all states except Arizona, where in Maricopa County inmates can still volunteer for a chain gang to earn credit toward a high school diploma or avoid disciplinary lockdowns for rule infractions.
Another PERCEIVED wrong by the stooges

I don't have a problem with inmate labor provided they are paid at least minimum wage for their work. I understand in some cases they are paid much lower than that, which I don't agree with. Of course I would also do the same with able bodied people on welfare/food stamps. Either help them find work, or find something useful they can do and pay them at least minimum wage to do it.

williatw wrote:I don't have a problem with inmate labor provided they are paid at least minimum wage for their work. I understand in some cases they are paid much lower than that, which I don't agree with. Of course I would also do the same with able bodied people on welfare/food stamps. Either help them find work, or find something useful they can do and pay them at least minimum wage to do it.

Absolutely! And they should raise the minimum wage to something reasonable, like $50.00 / hour.
The poor would be much more interested in working if they got paid a good wage for their work.

$50.00/ hour for minimum wage seems reasonable to me.


What do you think the minimum wage should be?

Diogenes wrote:

williatw wrote:I don't have a problem with inmate labor provided they are paid at least minimum wage for their work. I understand in some cases they are paid much lower than that, which I don't agree with. Of course I would also do the same with able bodied people on welfare/food stamps. Either help them find work, or find something useful they can do and pay them at least minimum wage to do it.

Absolutely! And they should raise the minimum wage to something reasonable, like $50.00 / hour.
The poor would be much more interested in working if they got paid a good wage for their work.

$50.00/ hour for minimum wage seems reasonable to me.


What do you think the minimum wage should be?

$50.00 and hour is obviously insane. $9.00 seems about right, still well below the historical high as far as buying power of the minimum wage. I would then also index it against inflation as our Ohio minimum wage is. They can employ all the inmates they want as long as they are paid at least mimimum wage, that would reduce the incentive driving the worst of the current abuses.

williatw wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Absolutely! And they should raise the minimum wage to something reasonable, like $50.00 / hour.
The poor would be much more interested in working if they got paid a good wage for their work.

$50.00/ hour for minimum wage seems reasonable to me.


What do you think the minimum wage should be?

$50.00 an hour is obviously insane. $9.00 seems about right, still well below the historical high as far as buying power of the minimum wage.

I'm confused. If we are going to make a law which says people should get some fixed value of minimum pay, why doesn't the logic hold for $50.00/ hour? Are you against the poor or something?

williatw wrote: I would then also index it against inflation as our Ohio minimum wage is. They can employ all the inmates they want as long as they are paid at least mimimum wage, that would reduce the incentive driving the worst of the current abuses.

I think we should eliminate poverty by passing a law which makes wages $50.00 / hour. After all, if it works at $9.00/ hour, it will work just as well at $50.00/ hour. I want people to be happy, and all we have to do is pass a law and it will make people happy.

Are you against people being happy?

williatw wrote: I would then also index it against inflation as our Ohio minimum wage is. They can employ all the inmates they want as long as they are paid at least mimimum wage, that would reduce the incentive driving the worst of the current abuses.

So, then if inflation is negative or neutral it tracks with?
In any event, minimum wage is a pure corruption of the free market system. It can and has only caused problems. It's intent did not meet it's use.
Like unions.

You want to help the economy. Do away with minumum wage.
Raising it will only drive up the cost of everything, and then you are back where you started or worse. It is an artificial fix that is short term for a few and the expense of all. It causes inflation.

ladajo wrote:

williatw wrote: I would then also index it against inflation as our Ohio minimum wage is. They can employ all the inmates they want as long as they are paid at least mimimum wage, that would reduce the incentive driving the worst of the current abuses.

So, then if inflation is negative or neutral it tracks with?
In any event, minimum wage is a pure corruption of the free market system. It can and has only caused problems. It's intent did not meet it's use.
Like unions.

You want to help the economy. Do away with minumum wage.
Raising it will only drive up the cost of everything, and then you are back where you started or worse. It is an artificial fix that is short term for a few and the expense of all. It causes inflation.

The purpose of the minimum wage is to help low skilled workers by creating a type of social safety net, a bottom so to speak for wages. Don't care if it is a deviation from the perceived perfection of the free market, I believe in the free market but I don't consider myself to be a fanatical devotee of the free market to the exclusion of any other consideration. If you think you could get most poor Americans to accept whatever the "free market" bottom would be to wages with no legal minimum I think you are kidding yourself. $.80 per hour? $.10 per hour how low do you think wages would go? Get rid of welfare/food stamps/minimum wage and just let the free market sort things out. It will give the poor an incentive to get off their collective duffs and get marketable skills like the rest of us. They would probably get off their duffs and oh..burn the cities (and suburbs) down. Think 30-40 million Americans would just accept a third world country shanty town existence surrounded by affluence? Think you got enough police and army to force them to? Since only a relatively small percentage of workers earn minimum wage it is hard for me to appreciate how it will drive inflation insane.

It only works at all if there are only a few at minimum wage. If most workers were at minimum wage then you would have massive unemployement and hyperinflation. How is this so hard to understand?

You do not understand the economics of it.

Setting a minimum wage impacts all levels of earnings. Not just that (not so small) minority of minimum wage earners you talk about.
You are talking about high school entry level kids, post high school pre-college/college students etc etc etc.
It is actually a direct part of the larger employment market. And then, you must also consider that if Joe Schmoe no high school diploma is Min Waging at $10/hr, what do you think Pete Icancount with his high school piploma is going to want? How about Dick Smartypants with his Voc-Tech Certificate, or Associates? How about Mary Holyierthanthou is going to seek for her Bachelor's Degree? It all ripples.
Now consider adding this "more income" to the market. So overall disposable cash goes up, folks start buying more, demand kicks in, supply lags, prices go up, new market norms are established, overall cost eventually increases as demand now evens back out to where it was. Included in this dog walk is that employers wil now have to raise Cost of Goods Sold in order to maintain viability due to increased wage and tax costs for increased earners...they then pass this on down the market chain, eventually it even reaches their suppliers for raw goods, and it all comes around again. That is why it is called an economic cycle.
It is not a major challenge for you to go back to US Minimum Wage enactments and then look at follow on consumer price index changes, as well as inflationary pressures. They correllate you know.

Dude. Bottom Line: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

And yes, I think we should do away with welfare programs for free. You want it, you earn it, and improve yourself and your marketability at the same time. And if you take it, you give up your right to vote while you take it. And if anyone wants to come burn down my house, they are welcome to try. I am sure I will get some of them before/if they get me. If I don't my neighbour will. I can afford bullets for my guns, and so can my neighbours.

williatw wrote:

ladajo wrote:
So, then if inflation is negative or neutral it tracks with?
In any event, minimum wage is a pure corruption of the free market system. It can and has only caused problems. It's intent did not meet it's use.
Like unions.

You want to help the economy. Do away with minumum wage.
Raising it will only drive up the cost of everything, and then you are back where you started or worse. It is an artificial fix that is short term for a few and the expense of all. It causes inflation.

The purpose of the minimum wage is to help low skilled workers by creating a type of social safety net, a bottom so to speak for wages.

That is it's alleged purpose. It has other purposes as well. Union wages automatically go up every time the minimum wage is raised. This is why Unions, whose members make many times minimum wage, are ALWAYS in favor of a minimum wage increase. They get automatic pay raises, and who would be against that?

As to it's alleged purpose, how are you creating a safety net when you are knocking less skilled people completely out of the job market? You are creating a barrier to job entry. (an effect which is much easier to see when you put the minimum wage at $50.00/ hour.)

williatw wrote:
Don't care if it is a deviation from the perceived perfection of the free market, I believe in the free market but I don't consider myself to be a fanatical devotee of the free market to the exclusion of any other consideration. If you think you could get most poor Americans to accept whatever the "free market" bottom would be to wages with no legal minimum I think you are kidding yourself. $.80 per hour? $.10 per hour how low do you think wages would go?

Almost to zero. Functions based on natural phenomena don't normally have arbitrary points of demarcation. People only create these artificial boundaries because they are trying to con people into believing that they are helping.

williatw wrote: Get rid of welfare/food stamps/minimum wage and just let the free market sort things out. It will give the poor an incentive to get off their collective duffs and get marketable skills like the rest of us. They would probably get off their duffs and oh..burn the cities (and suburbs) down. Think 30-40 million Americans would just accept a third world country shanty town existence surrounded by affluence? Think you got enough police and army to force them to? Since only a relatively small percentage of workers earn minimum wage it is hard for me to appreciate how it will drive inflation insane.

See, with this thinking, I don't know why you object to $50.00 per hour minimum wage. If the theory underpinning it makes sense at $9.00/hour, it makes just as much sense at any other arbitrary amount.

Thanks for bringing in the unions as well. I forgot that bit as I was typing.

Minimim Wage is a bad idea. It had its point, just like unions, but it was short sighted and has become corrupted.
It should have been created, allowed for a market correction, then abolished. Just like unions.
Minumum Wage and Unions go hand in hand. Learn the history.

Unions are, at their core, based on free association. And while they generally become corrupted, their original purpose remains.

ladajo wrote:You do not understand the economics of it.

Setting a minimum wage impacts all levels of earnings. Not just that (not so small) minority of minimum wage earners you talk about.
You are talking about high school entry level kids, post high school pre-college/college students etc etc etc.
It is actually a direct part of the larger employment market. And then, you must also consider that if Joe Schmoe no high school diploma is Min Waging at $10/hr, what do you think Pete Icancount with his high school piploma is going to want? How about Dick Smartypants with his Voc-Tech Certificate, or Associates? How about Mary Holyierthanthou is going to seek for her Bachelor's Degree? It all ripples.
Now consider adding this "more income" to the market. So overall disposable cash goes up, folks start buying more, demand kicks in, supply lags, prices go up, new market norms are established, overall cost eventually increases as demand now evens back out to where it was. Included in this dog walk is that employers wil now have to raise Cost of Goods Sold in order to maintain viability due to increased wage and tax costs for increased earners...they then pass this on down the market chain, eventually it even reaches their suppliers for raw goods, and it all comes around again. That is why it is called an economic cycle.
It is not a major challenge for you to go back to US Minimum Wage enactments and then look at follow on consumer price index changes, as well as inflationary pressures. They correllate you know.

Dude. Bottom Line: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

And yes, I think we should do away with welfare programs for free. You want it, you earn it, and improve yourself and your marketability at the same time. And if you take it, you give up your right to vote while you take it. And if anyone wants to come burn down my house, they are welcome to try. I am sure I will get some of them before/if they get me. If I don't my neighbour will. I can afford bullets for my guns, and so can my neighbours.

Your describing what you believe are the disadvantages of the miniumum wage. Okay accepting all of that for the sake of argument, what do you think the negative consequences would be of abolishing it? You want to compare one vs another? That's the reason why the peasants were always disarmed throughout history. Then you can let wages drop to subsistence levels for large percentage of the population. Let them riot, the police/army can just shoot the unarmed starving unwashed masses. You really want to try that social experiment with our armed poor? Yes I believe in the 2nd amemdment too, and also for the right to use deadly force to protect life, limb and property, but I am not eager to put that to the ultimate test if I can help it. The problems you outline seem better than the likely alternative. And I am not talking about a free lunch. I would replace welfare/foodstamps for the able bodied and just pay them minimum wage, find something useful they can do and pay them either private sector or gov.