4 ms·
To be fair only "workers" and employees should be able to vote on employment law then, no students no pensioners. This is why employment law needs to be take
by C1sc0cat 6y ago
To be fair only "workers" and employees should be able to vote on employment law then, no students no pensioners.
This is why employment law needs to be take away from the states - have one federally defined set of laws - stops a race to the bottom.
- NeutronStar 6y ago> students So because they are still learning to work, and because they need more time to learn to work, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on how to work? Madness.
- ericmay 6y agoYea until the same problems just get applied everywhere instead of in one state only. I prefer keeping many things at the state level. It’s much more difficult to be involved in government when you’re trying to vote in a pool of 350,000,000 people with different interests. Democracies lose effectiveness as population increases.
- C1sc0cat 6y agoSo if a US state did something like Ireland and Holland do and help big companies dodge taxes - you'd be fine with that? There is a good argument (for the good of the country as a whole) that sales tax should be harmonised.
- ericmay 6y agoAs I said, I prefer keeping many things at the state level, not necessarily all things. What you're describing here might be a good example of something that should be or continue to be regulated at the federal level, but keep in mind that we do have "tax dodging" scenarios to this day if you move to different states with different rules. (you can also apply this globally as well, tax havens, etc.) Over time I've become more interested in the loose confederation of states and decentralization of power over consolidation of power at the hands of the federal government. I think the US has too large of a population with an increasing amount of differences to really effectively govern. If parents want to teach kids that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in their state, who am I to say otherwise? Vote with your feet and $$. If I don't like how California handles businesses like Uber and Lyft, same thing. At least at the state level though you right now have some reasonable measure of involvement. I can email my state representative and actually get a response. My federal one? Not a chance.
- mlrtime 6y agoThe problem is that the Federal Govt. takes too many taxes and can enforce federal laws or states don't get funding. In order for states to take back power they need the income.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>This is why employment law needs to be take away from the states - have one federally defined set of laws - stops a race to the bottom. It's not that hard to imagine a world where Chester Cheeto wins in a landslide, the Republicans get a healthy majority in congress and the Kochs convince them to repeal most existing federal labor law. Will you be clamoring for federal labor and employment law then? Sure, there might be 40-something states with lower cost of doing business than CA. But is that status quo really worse than one where the federal government both controls employment law and guts it? If CA really is doing it right then surely the people working menial jobs will be better off, have more income, spend more income and their economy will grow, the rules will be a net-positive overall and other states will adopt similar ones.
- humanrebar 6y agoAgreed. "It should be a national issue!" presumes a particular set of policies are enacted, enacted effectively, and enacted fairly. One could certainly be overly optimistic about that happening. Best case, it makes "a federal issue" out of something at a time when political divisiveness is already at intolerable levels. At least now Alabama and California can disappointedly shake their damn heads at one another instead of being engaged in active opposition.
- yeetman21 6y agominimum wage should be set at the state level, or even lower