Also note, even the "real wages" of skilled labor tends to be dropping these days, as more and more people pursue higher education. Unfortunately, a person with said higher skills does in fact need to have a significantly higher wage then a person without, in order to pay for and justify the costs incurred obtaining the greater skills - time spent in training (and not working), student loans, certification costs, and so on. There is a "livable" baseline for any given set of job skills, and companies have no qualms about dropping below it whenever and wherever possible.
bitterroot: Please demonstrate unemployment of longer than 6 months that has occurred if you're going to make that assertion. I've analyzed a number and yet to find one that has kept its UE increase longterm - but I admittedly haven't dredged over them all, unfortunately I've never seen a report on someone who compiled the entirety only a few specific ones.
There's frequently a SHORT TERM unemployment bump (often at the same time as kids go back to school strangely) that disappears between Spring Break and Summer Break - and considering minimum wage bumps almost always go into place July to August......
Vac, the same reason why $100/hour will cost jobs for the low skilled people. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that raising min wage to that level will have a detrimental effect......
If you do not believe there will be a negative impact, it should hold true with any amount you raise the wage....
You guys think there is this magical number the government can institute in order to make everything "fair" or "livable". I read a few post above where you talked about wages you would pay someone.....tell us all, honestly, how you came to the conclusion to what would be the target pay rate for the employee you were going to hire......
95% of it came from a market analysis of comparable salary. Not some number pulled out the magical world of arbitrariness. The market determines what is livable....the market determine what wages a job is worth....not the government. The government should ensure competition not artifically create this ideological and arbitrary "livable wage"
Vac, the same reason why $100/hour will cost jobs for the low skilled people. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that raising min wage to that level will have a detrimental effect......
If you do not believe there will be a negative impact, it should hold true with any amount you raise the wage....
I don't see how anyone would be convinced by that line of reasoning. It would destroy companies if they voluntarily raised wages to $100/hour, but that doesn't mean it would destroy them to pay the current rate instead of $1/hour. The reason is that changes to wage structure has negative and positive impacts. Depending on the change, the positives may outweigh the negatives, while other changes (such as an astronomical increase) would have the negatives outweigh the positives.
Vac, the same reason why $100/hour will cost jobs for the low skilled people. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that raising min wage to that level will have a detrimental effect......
If you do not believe there will be a negative impact, it should hold true with any amount you raise the wage....
And a 0% tax rate is completely detrimental because the government won't be able to raise any money to exist. This is the same thing for all government services. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that cutting taxes to that level will have a detrimental effect.....
If you do believe there will be a negative imapct, it should hold true with any amount you decrease taxes....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Vac, the same reason why $100/hour will cost jobs for the low skilled people. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that raising min wage to that level will have a detrimental effect......
If you do not believe there will be a negative impact, it should hold true with any amount you raise the wage....
And a 0% tax rate is completely detrimental because the government won't be able to raise any money to exist. This is the same thing for all government services. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that cutting taxes to that level will have a detrimental effect.....
If you do believe there will be a negative imapct, it should hold true with any amount you decrease taxes....
Reading what the two of you write is quite the experience. Apparently the carriage return and the ellipsis go together like butter and toast.
The flaw in your logic is that a 0% tax rate across the board results in zero income to the government (assuming all the government's income comes from taxes), but a $0 minimum wage does not result in zero income for hourly employees. Hourly employees would still be paid, just at a lower (market equilibrium) rate.
That being said, I haven't actually seen anyone call for a complete abolition of the minimum wage. Most of the people who are against raising the minimum wage are simply saying it shouldn't be increased, or that it should be decreased slightly. For this argument, your tax analogy is pretty apt. A 0% tax rate is obviously bad because it would kill the government. So is a 100% tax rate, because it would kill the economy. The tax rate is an optimization problem where we're trying to find the magic point where the benefits exceed the costs by the greatest amount.
The same is true of the minimum wage. A $0 minimum wage might be bad because it would, for example, permit the exploitation of uneducated workers who don't know their other options, or perhaps it would place an increased burden on the social safety nets (these are debatable, but lets just say they're definitely true). Obviously a $100 minimum wage would cause crippling harm to the economy and widespread outsourcing. So the trick is the find the magic point where benefits outweigh costs by the greatest amount.
The kicker here is that it's possible this magic point falls below what you would consider to be a "living wage." It's possible that this optimum point is $1, or $5, or $10, or $20. I don't know, but I do know that your moral approval or disapproval of the number has nothing to do with whether it's mathematically optimal. If you're going to argue "we need to raise the minimum wage to $X," it's not sufficient to just point out the benefits of raising the wage and talk in vague platitudes about all the people it would help. You also have to acknowledge all the harms of raising the wage and show that the benefits would be greater than the harms.
When the "harms" involve people being allowed to undercut themselves so much so as to not be able to live without public assistance while working full time at minimum wage,
"Houston - we've got a problem".
Minimum wage should be tied to a minimum standard of living - which we already have welfare and other programs caged to so the figure already exists, although it's variable depending on the program - I think the 200% of poverty level figure is the best however and it is the most commonly used. Only a few use below (i.e. housing assistance) and only a few use above (i.e. ACA subsidization).
There is no sensible reason even the lowest paid workers should qualify for government benefits while working full time - ZERO. They should literally get just enough to be right above that as a baseline IMO where ever the figure ends up specifically. (And yes, some localities would require something higher)
When the "harms" involve people being allowed to undercut themselves so much so as to not be able to live without public assistance while working full time at minimum wage,
"Houston - we've got a problem".
Minimum wage should be tied to a minimum standard of living - which we already have welfare and other programs caged to so the figure already exists, although it's variable depending on the program - I think the 200% of poverty level figure is the best however and it is the most commonly used. Only a few use below (i.e. housing assistance) and only a few use above (i.e. ACA subsidization).
There is no sensible reason even the lowest paid workers should qualify for government benefits while working full time - ZERO. They should literally get just enough to be right above that as a baseline IMO where ever the figure ends up specifically. (And yes, some localities would require something higher)
Minimum standard of living for who? Are we going to have a different minimum wage for single mothers and 16 year old high school guys? How about different counties?
When the "harms" involve people being allowed to undercut themselves so much so as to not be able to live without public assistance while working full time at minimum wage,
"Houston - we've got a problem".
Minimum wage should be tied to a minimum standard of living - which we already have welfare and other programs caged to so the figure already exists, although it's variable depending on the program - I think the 200% of poverty level figure is the best however and it is the most commonly used. Only a few use below (i.e. housing assistance) and only a few use above (i.e. ACA subsidization).
There is no sensible reason even the lowest paid workers should qualify for government benefits while working full time - ZERO. They should literally get just enough to be right above that as a baseline IMO where ever the figure ends up specifically. (And yes, some localities would require something higher)
Minimum standard of living for who? Are we going to have a different minimum wage for single mothers and 16 year old high school guys? How about different counties?
Minimum standard of living for everyone sounds like an ideal one. The issue here is that we should not provide an incentive to be on public assistance. If you have the possibility to make more via public assistance than you can on a full time minimum wage job, what incentive is there to even attempt to take that job?
I don't know about you but I like to play magic cards. If the government would give me a house, food, and health insurance for nothing, I can think of plenty of things I want that can't be bought with food.
But say I work, then the money I make could be spent on things. Its funny to me how many people seem to think this free ride would be taken by people. Its nice to have a floor, but trust me, people would want to be on the couch, and they'd work for it.
Vac, the same reason why $100/hour will cost jobs for the low skilled people. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that raising min wage to that level will have a detrimental effect......
If you do not believe there will be a negative impact, it should hold true with any amount you raise the wage....
And a 0% tax rate is completely detrimental because the government won't be able to raise any money to exist. This is the same thing for all government services. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that cutting taxes to that level will have a detrimental effect.....
If you do believe there will be a negative imapct, it should hold true with any amount you decrease taxes....
What? I'm not talking about tax rates. I do not think I've ever really discussed cutting taxes before.
When the "harms" involve people being allowed to undercut themselves so much so as to not be able to live without public assistance while working full time at minimum wage,
"Houston - we've got a problem".
Minimum wage should be tied to a minimum standard of living - which we already have welfare and other programs caged to so the figure already exists, although it's variable depending on the program - I think the 200% of poverty level figure is the best however and it is the most commonly used. Only a few use below (i.e. housing assistance) and only a few use above (i.e. ACA subsidization).
There is no sensible reason even the lowest paid workers should qualify for government benefits while working full time - ZERO. They should literally get just enough to be right above that as a baseline IMO where ever the figure ends up specifically. (And yes, some localities would require something higher)
Minimum standard of living for who? Are we going to have a different minimum wage for single mothers and 16 year old high school guys? How about different counties?
I did quote different localities might require different ones.... and counties are a form of locality so, yes counties might require different ones. (Although in my experience, it's probably best to do smaller scale than that - cities themselves - at least in the areas I've lived in there's low income and high income parts in the same county while the cities are pretty consistent)
As for age based ones - I'm not sure if they're universally legal to give age breaks or not, but certainly if they are - allow them where they're permitted. (In fact they already are - for example I think it's Nebraska that allows children from 13-16 to work for $3/hr if it's farm labor... also most states I'm familiar with have "family business" exceptions as well that are similar although very narrow... but again not sure if it's universally permitted or something only a few states allow)
They have a point, at least according to a recent international survey of workers in two dozen developed countries, which found that workers in the U.S. trailed many of their foreign peers in literacy, math, and problem-solving skills.
Aside from the bias of the article indicating its the employers fault a person is not adequently skilled for the positions avialble, lets make them pay more for this lack of skill with a minimum wage hike. Lets not blame the public education system largely ran by the government to which is responsible for educating our future workers.
Most evidence indicates low pay is an education and skills issue....
Want to fix low wages, fix what causes them.
EDIT: Yes Bo, I know you think some people are incapable of getting educated and obtaining skills so you think they deserve some sort of floor.
An interesting viewpoint billy - but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. You can educate everyone all you want, but that will just depress the wages of skilled workers, by your own supply/demand arguments. Unfortunately, there IS an arbitrary floor on what skilled workers can be paid - that floor is defined by what it cost them to acquire the skills in the first place. I literally cannot accept any job that doesn't pay me enough to afford me the $300 or so monthly student loan payment I'll soon have to start making. There may as well be a minimum wage for skilled workers, it's not one the federal government mandated, and it's been getting higher every year. I do agree we have problems with our education system - too much training in straight knowledge, not enough training in mental skills, and the knowledge we do train tends to be the kind that's worthless without said thinking skills.
But I think there are larger, more fundamental issues going on. As we achieve more and more automation, we need unskilled labor less and less. What happens when everything the bottom half of the intelligence curve can provide, can be done better by a robot (or a cheap foreign worker)? Not everyone will have the smarts and creativity needed to produce something a robot can't replicate. In fact, only a relatively tiny portion of people do. Furthermore, the ability to come up with something a robot can't do better is based on thinking skills that at the moment we don't know how to artificially instill in a fully grown adult. We also don't have a very good idea to cultivate these skills in children either. So a huge chunk of people's fates are essentially sealed at childhood, when they don't develop thinking skills that make them impossible to replace by a machine. What are we going to do with such people? Are we just going to kill them off, let them starve, what? What do you do when a substantial percentage of your population is basically unemployable? Our current economic model simply does not function under these conditions, hence why I think we are going to need to radically change it before we can answer these questions.
LadyLuck, I have included that very topic in the academic debates that I have moderated. The students typically seem takenaback by the thought of a future where, as you say, a "hudge chunk of people's fates are essentially sealed at childhood." These are junior level university students, mind you. I've pondered the possible responses to the challenge, and the best I can come up with is some kind of government limitation on the use of robots. Of course, the rub there is that certain news networks and political parties will look past the benefits for their viewers and constituents; they will bleat about the government attacking big business.
My appologies for the somewhat rambling response. The gist of it is that I believe we need to look at legal limitations on the use of robotics in the workplace.
But I think there are larger, more fundamental issues going on. As we achieve more and more automation, we need unskilled labor less and less.
Unskilled labor has never really been in high demand.
What happens when everything the bottom half of the intelligence curve can provide, can be done better by a robot (or a cheap foreign worker)?
The problem with this is, it assumes the bottom half of the intelligence curve is incapable of leraning a marketable skill. I've never understood this often implicit belief that people are incapable of adaptating.
Before I get the straw-man argument that I think everyone should "pull up their bootstraps" I'll elaborate more. Its not that I think everyone can do this as I fully support programs for people who are disabled, too young or too old but its more the belief that a signficant portion of our society who are not disabled, not too old or are not too young are not as incapable as some think they are.
What do you do when a substantial percentage of your population is basically unemployable?
Well, I think our population is more capable at adapting than you think they are. In case you missed it, I refute the premise that most people are incapable, dumb or lazy.
LadyLuck, I have included that very topic in the academic debates that I have moderated. The students typically seem takenaback by the thought of a future where, as you say, a "hudge chunk of people's fates are essentially sealed at childhood." These are junior level university students, mind you. I've pondered the possible responses to the challenge, and the best I can come up with is some kind of government limitation on the use of robots. Of course, the rub there is that certain news networks and political parties will look past the benefits for their viewers and constituents; they will bleat about the government attacking big business.
My appologies for the somewhat rambling response. The gist of it is that I believe we need to look at legal limitations on the use of robotics in the workplace.
The entire histories of economies have been one of innovation and adapting, not trying to stay in the same place due to the fear of "what if".
You are looking at the matter from a very narrow viewpoint. Innovation and adaption are not abrupt processes. The government would be playing a role in facilitating innovation and adaption by putting limitations on the use of robotics. I should also remind you that unskilled labor is a myth. That's more a debate for education reform, however.
You are looking at the matter from a very narrow viewpoint. Innovation and adaption are not abrupt processes. The government would be playing a role in facilitating innovation and adaption by putting limitations on the use of robotics. I should also remind you that unskilled labor is a myth. That's more a debate for education reform, however.
No, I'm not, I'm looking at it from your irrational fear of automation.
Irrational is a strong word for our debate. It denotes that I am entirely anti-automation, which is simply not the case. I am in favor of gradual automation. A working definition of "gradual automation" is the slow integration of robotics into the business model in tandem with education in robotics operation and repair. This would allow most of the people to adapt to a changing industrial model.
Why do you think people are not capable of adapting with out government assistance? This consistent and repetitive implication people are incapable and NEED government help is disturbing.
I don't think that our people lack the capability to adapt. The solution that I propose would feature the government ultimately working for the people. At no point in my replies have I implied that the our people are incapable.
From the beginnings of civilization up through the 1950s would disagree with you even through the 70s it wasn't a requirement. And up through the 80s even Ivy league universities were affordable to the middle class without drastic measures.
Don't confuse the past generation or two with the history of the world.
.
I'm tired of this. I really am. Cite where I've said this. You have a habit of taking things and mischaracterizing them. It's intellectually dishonest. Now shift the goalpost....like you always do when presented with your blatant and deceitful characterization of other's words.
You really should stop confusing my words with your dishonest interpretations of them.
I don't think that our people lack the capability to adapt. The solution that I propose would feature the government ultimately working for the people. At no point in my replies have I implied that the our people are incapable.
If you think they are capable why does the government need to intervene? If they are capable, why is there a need for a "solution" which implies there is a problem.....what is the problem? The problem as presented by you implicitly states is our people need help in a world with increasing automation......according to you. consequently needing a solution.....what about our people that you think they need governments help to adapt to a changing economy with increased reliance on automation? Other than educating them, to which they, in my opinion, have failed....I'm not the one looking at this from a narrow perspective.
There's frequently a SHORT TERM unemployment bump (often at the same time as kids go back to school strangely) that disappears between Spring Break and Summer Break - and considering minimum wage bumps almost always go into place July to August......
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If you do not believe there will be a negative impact, it should hold true with any amount you raise the wage....
You guys think there is this magical number the government can institute in order to make everything "fair" or "livable". I read a few post above where you talked about wages you would pay someone.....tell us all, honestly, how you came to the conclusion to what would be the target pay rate for the employee you were going to hire......
95% of it came from a market analysis of comparable salary. Not some number pulled out the magical world of arbitrariness. The market determines what is livable....the market determine what wages a job is worth....not the government. The government should ensure competition not artifically create this ideological and arbitrary "livable wage"
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I don't see how anyone would be convinced by that line of reasoning. It would destroy companies if they voluntarily raised wages to $100/hour, but that doesn't mean it would destroy them to pay the current rate instead of $1/hour. The reason is that changes to wage structure has negative and positive impacts. Depending on the change, the positives may outweigh the negatives, while other changes (such as an astronomical increase) would have the negatives outweigh the positives.
And a 0% tax rate is completely detrimental because the government won't be able to raise any money to exist. This is the same thing for all government services. Just on a different scale. Obviously you are aware that cutting taxes to that level will have a detrimental effect.....
If you do believe there will be a negative imapct, it should hold true with any amount you decrease taxes....
Reading what the two of you write is quite the experience. Apparently the carriage return and the ellipsis go together like butter and toast.
The flaw in your logic is that a 0% tax rate across the board results in zero income to the government (assuming all the government's income comes from taxes), but a $0 minimum wage does not result in zero income for hourly employees. Hourly employees would still be paid, just at a lower (market equilibrium) rate.
That being said, I haven't actually seen anyone call for a complete abolition of the minimum wage. Most of the people who are against raising the minimum wage are simply saying it shouldn't be increased, or that it should be decreased slightly. For this argument, your tax analogy is pretty apt. A 0% tax rate is obviously bad because it would kill the government. So is a 100% tax rate, because it would kill the economy. The tax rate is an optimization problem where we're trying to find the magic point where the benefits exceed the costs by the greatest amount.
The same is true of the minimum wage. A $0 minimum wage might be bad because it would, for example, permit the exploitation of uneducated workers who don't know their other options, or perhaps it would place an increased burden on the social safety nets (these are debatable, but lets just say they're definitely true). Obviously a $100 minimum wage would cause crippling harm to the economy and widespread outsourcing. So the trick is the find the magic point where benefits outweigh costs by the greatest amount.
The kicker here is that it's possible this magic point falls below what you would consider to be a "living wage." It's possible that this optimum point is $1, or $5, or $10, or $20. I don't know, but I do know that your moral approval or disapproval of the number has nothing to do with whether it's mathematically optimal. If you're going to argue "we need to raise the minimum wage to $X," it's not sufficient to just point out the benefits of raising the wage and talk in vague platitudes about all the people it would help. You also have to acknowledge all the harms of raising the wage and show that the benefits would be greater than the harms.
"Houston - we've got a problem".
Minimum wage should be tied to a minimum standard of living - which we already have welfare and other programs caged to so the figure already exists, although it's variable depending on the program - I think the 200% of poverty level figure is the best however and it is the most commonly used. Only a few use below (i.e. housing assistance) and only a few use above (i.e. ACA subsidization).
There is no sensible reason even the lowest paid workers should qualify for government benefits while working full time - ZERO. They should literally get just enough to be right above that as a baseline IMO where ever the figure ends up specifically. (And yes, some localities would require something higher)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Minimum standard of living for who? Are we going to have a different minimum wage for single mothers and 16 year old high school guys? How about different counties?
Minimum standard of living for everyone sounds like an ideal one. The issue here is that we should not provide an incentive to be on public assistance. If you have the possibility to make more via public assistance than you can on a full time minimum wage job, what incentive is there to even attempt to take that job?
source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/study-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states/
But say I work, then the money I make could be spent on things. Its funny to me how many people seem to think this free ride would be taken by people. Its nice to have a floor, but trust me, people would want to be on the couch, and they'd work for it.
What? I'm not talking about tax rates. I do not think I've ever really discussed cutting taxes before.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I did quote different localities might require different ones.... and counties are a form of locality so, yes counties might require different ones. (Although in my experience, it's probably best to do smaller scale than that - cities themselves - at least in the areas I've lived in there's low income and high income parts in the same county while the cities are pretty consistent)
As for age based ones - I'm not sure if they're universally legal to give age breaks or not, but certainly if they are - allow them where they're permitted. (In fact they already are - for example I think it's Nebraska that allows children from 13-16 to work for $3/hr if it's farm labor... also most states I'm familiar with have "family business" exceptions as well that are similar although very narrow... but again not sure if it's universally permitted or something only a few states allow)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Aside from the bias of the article indicating its the employers fault a person is not adequently skilled for the positions avialble, lets make them pay more for this lack of skill with a minimum wage hike. Lets not blame the public education system largely ran by the government to which is responsible for educating our future workers.
Most evidence indicates low pay is an education and skills issue....
Want to fix low wages, fix what causes them.
EDIT: Yes Bo, I know you think some people are incapable of getting educated and obtaining skills so you think they deserve some sort of floor.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
But I think there are larger, more fundamental issues going on. As we achieve more and more automation, we need unskilled labor less and less. What happens when everything the bottom half of the intelligence curve can provide, can be done better by a robot (or a cheap foreign worker)? Not everyone will have the smarts and creativity needed to produce something a robot can't replicate. In fact, only a relatively tiny portion of people do. Furthermore, the ability to come up with something a robot can't do better is based on thinking skills that at the moment we don't know how to artificially instill in a fully grown adult. We also don't have a very good idea to cultivate these skills in children either. So a huge chunk of people's fates are essentially sealed at childhood, when they don't develop thinking skills that make them impossible to replace by a machine. What are we going to do with such people? Are we just going to kill them off, let them starve, what? What do you do when a substantial percentage of your population is basically unemployable? Our current economic model simply does not function under these conditions, hence why I think we are going to need to radically change it before we can answer these questions.
My appologies for the somewhat rambling response. The gist of it is that I believe we need to look at legal limitations on the use of robotics in the workplace.
Unskilled labor has never really been in high demand.
The problem with this is, it assumes the bottom half of the intelligence curve is incapable of leraning a marketable skill. I've never understood this often implicit belief that people are incapable of adaptating.
Before I get the straw-man argument that I think everyone should "pull up their bootstraps" I'll elaborate more. Its not that I think everyone can do this as I fully support programs for people who are disabled, too young or too old but its more the belief that a signficant portion of our society who are not disabled, not too old or are not too young are not as incapable as some think they are.
Well, I think our population is more capable at adapting than you think they are. In case you missed it, I refute the premise that most people are incapable, dumb or lazy.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The entire histories of economies have been one of innovation and adapting, not trying to stay in the same place due to the fear of "what if".
hint: start studying robotics engineering, selling robotics, maintaining robotics, troubshooting robotics.... etc etc......
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No, I'm not, I'm looking at it from your irrational fear of automation.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
From the beginnings of civilization up through the 1950s would disagree with you even through the 70s it wasn't a requirement. And up through the 80s even Ivy league universities were affordable to the middle class without drastic measures.
Don't confuse the past generation or two with the history of the world.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
.
I'm tired of this. I really am. Cite where I've said this. You have a habit of taking things and mischaracterizing them. It's intellectually dishonest. Now shift the goalpost....like you always do when presented with your blatant and deceitful characterization of other's words.
You really should stop confusing my words with your dishonest interpretations of them.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
If you think they are capable why does the government need to intervene? If they are capable, why is there a need for a "solution" which implies there is a problem.....what is the problem? The problem as presented by you implicitly states is our people need help in a world with increasing automation......according to you. consequently needing a solution.....what about our people that you think they need governments help to adapt to a changing economy with increased reliance on automation? Other than educating them, to which they, in my opinion, have failed....I'm not the one looking at this from a narrow perspective.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.