## 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Wrong, quadriplegics cannot work and there are many on that sort of list who should be given a livable income.

Were you referring to slavery again Wrong? Did I jump the gun?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7019
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Everyone who can work should work some at least.
Everyone who can't work should have a, 'livable income',

This is what you said, "everyone who can work should work"

Do you want to take back "everyone who can't work, should have a livable income" too?

Uh...there's a difference between: you should, and: you must, or else!

Like you should buckle up before driving, or you should bundle up before going outside in negative 30 degree weather, doesn't mean I'm going to beat you over the head if you don't.

I, shouldn't, have to explain this stuff to you, you, should, know this stuff already, but that doesn't mean I think you ough to be thrown into a reeducation camp.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

WendyDarling wrote:Wrong, quadriplegics cannot work and there are many on that sort of list who should be given a livable income.

Were you referring to slavery again Wrong? Did I jump the gun?

Yea I think Wrong's the only one advocating slavery here.
He thinks socialism, in all cases, is totally evil, like that children, the disabled and seniors living in poverty should have to work 12-16 hours a day for whatever capitalists will pay them: 10 cents an hour, 20 cents, a bowl of rice a day, like they did in the 19th century before socialist reforms, that's his idea of freedom and prosperity, exploiting the vulnerable.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

that doesn't mean I think you ough to be thrown into a reeducation camp.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7019
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Laugh it up, I'm not the child saying "everyone should" do this or that like an imbecile.

A lot of people who don't work, or can't work, don't necessarily deserve handouts either.

So far the OP has made no convincing arguments and demonstrates very little to no understanding about basic economics. I hope the OP is under 18 years old, because it would be an embarrassment if you were older.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Laugh it up, I'm not the child saying "everyone should" do this or that like an imbecile.

A lot of people who don't work, or can't work, don't necessarily deserve handouts either.

So far the OP has made no convincing arguments and demonstrates very little to no understanding about basic economics. I hope the OP is under 18 years old, because it would be an embarrassment if you were older.

I don't give a shit what you do, was just using those examples to demonstrate your incompetence with grammar, and I've already demonstrated I know a hell of a lot more about economics than you.

I'm 33 years old, I'm 'lazy', and I don't like to work much.

So fucking what?

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

My grammar is masterful as is my knowledge of economics.

If you had half a clue then you would know that Wage is a deal and relationship between Employer and Employee. Your regulations, your "everybody should" nonsense, represents government and 3rd party intervention. So in other words, you want to intervene between the employer and employee to dictate what you subjectively deem as 'fair'. But you don't explain why or how, really. Your second premise is that "everybody deserves" (livable wages). What is livable, is subjective. One person can live on beans and little to no heat in winter. Other people cannot live on that. Some people live on yachts. There is no such thing as "livable wages". A 250lb person eats more food than 150 or 100lb people. Is it a matter of "deserving" more food? The second premise itself is flawed. You mentioned that "everybody" should work. Some people don't want to work. Some people work hard and get nothing. Some people work nothing and get a lot. All this is not a matter of justice, ultimately, but matters of nuance and discretion. Some people are fine with working at McDonalds. Others hate it. Some people will fight for a high paying job. Others will not.

You mention none of this, which to me, and others here, immediately indicate that you have not thought about this topic very deeply, but instead very shallow.

The first main problem of your proposals, and there are countless, is why is it "fair" for a third-party (you) to stick his nose into other people's business and dealings? If one person wants to pay another person $5 per hour, then what business is it of yours to dictate whether that wage should be higher or lower, as-if you had the first clue as to the value of the work, or the relationship between two people. Should a father working his son, to mow the yard, receive$30 per hour, because you say so, because "everybody deserves"? Or that Walmart should be forced to increase to $30 minimum wage, although the end result won't be what you predict anyway. Until you present a case, your proposals amount to nothing more than a deluded sense of "what's fair". And it won't convince anybody. People in the real-world, adults, employers, employees, know the value of their work intimately. If a job is not worth$15 an hour, if it's not worth $50 an hour, then don't do it. It's that simple. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1089 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Welfare is about 600 in Canada, disability isn't much more, it's probably about the same or worse in the states relative to the value of their dollar. 600 dollars isn't enough to afford an apartment, let alone pay for food, clothing, transportation... That's why many people on welfare and disability end up on the streets, squatting, in shelters, 'couch surfing', living in/out of their vehicles, several people crammed into one tiny apartment, barely eating, eating crap, begging, stealing, and then many people wonder why they can't get their shit together? It's because they themselves have never been in that situation before...but it could happen to you, if a series of unfortunate events were to befall you, accident, divorce, lay off, sickness, unless you're very rich, it could happen to you. 600 dollars is 7200 dollars a year, that's about 3 times below the poverty line. As for why I think wages should be much higher than they are, it's because the economy has grown a lot in the last half a century, so has the cost of living, while wages have relatively stagnated. Again, that's why the average man and woman both have to work full time to support themselves and their children now, they didn't have to do that several decades ago. There may be several reasons why this so, but one of, if not, the, reason is: capitalists have an unfair advantage over workers (your average worker needs to get a job many, many times more than big wants to give him a job), and if left unchecked, this advantage tends to grow, because big business tends to incrementally consolidate more and more of the economy, even without corruption, but inevitably it leads to corruption, accelerating the growth. Everyone ought to know the 'middle class' has been shrinking for decades, and in all likelihood will continue, until we're back where we were in the 19th century, where conditions weren't much better than that of slaves, because the social services haven't been keeping up with the gains capitalist have made and the losses workers have made that tend to multiply over time. Mothers and/or fathers should be able to take care of their kids I think, don't you? They shouldn't be forced to have daycare or nannies, grandparents or older siblings look after them, or leave them on their own. If unchecked capitalism ultimately leads to some combination of death, slavery and the destruction of the environment, why not? Why shouldn't workers do away with the or their notion of property altogether, or keep it, but institute occasional reforms to correct enormous disparities, what have they got to lose? If economic growth is destroying the environment and not only not benefitting, but detrimenting the vast majority of people, in a democracy, what are we losing by taking some of the money back through the exercise of our democratic powers? Absolutely nothing! I don't think we should have economic growth at all, because the environment needs to be protected for ourselves and future generations...because climate change, because mass deforestation, pollution and so on, rather I think we should concentrate on putting the resources we already have to better use, but if it does grow, people should grow along with it. I mean according to you, if someone takes a job that pays a penny an hour, that's how much the job is worth. No need for a minimum wage at all. Desperate people will take any ol' job for anything, they will produce thousands of dollars of product for pennies, while the capitalists make thousands of times more than them in opulence just for cracking the whip or doing nothing, because somehow, through a lot of luck, talent and/or tenacity, they managed to inherit, or build the family fortune, which included a factory, a factory the workers may have produced enough product to purchase thousands of times over. And many, most or all of these workers might not make enough to lift themselves out of these conditions for generations, if ever, because all the factories in their region are paying around the same, as little as humanly possible to subsist on, and very few workers rise in rank and even managers aren't paid that much more, I think anyone can see how absurd this definition of value is. No public officials have defined what our needs are, it's called the poverty line, our needs are on it or above, and we as a democracy can also discuss what our needs are, and come to some reasonable, objective, or at least intersubjective approximation/notion of what our needs as human beings are. You make it sound like even attempting to do such would be akin to voodoo or black magick. Of course peoples needs vary somewhat, yes a midget might be able to live on 100 dollars of food a day, but the average person can't, and that's what we need to be considering most of all, average people. You can survive in a hole in the wall on gruel for years or even decades, many prisoners in the 19th century had to endure such conditions, but your life expectancy is going to be more than halved, it's going to physically and psychologically disable you to the point where if you could function in a society before, you probably won't be able to now, not to mention you're going to be in a ton of pain and suffering, so let's not pretend that just because you're alive, your needs are being met. Conditions have to be better than that, but of course you don't have to live in a palace either. There's a happy middle between these two extremes and we can discuss what that middle is, I think it's having enough money to afford a roof over your head, a one bedroom apartment if you're single, eat some combination of fresh, whole foods and, whatever you want to call it, industrial foods, take the bus around the city, the poor have to be able to get around, or else how would they find jobs or buy groceries and so on, it's not rocket science, people should have enough to live comfortably or half comfortably, so they don't have to struggle everyday. I may be somewhat of a radical for proposing some of the things I am, but you're also a radical, more radical than me, you're a capitalist extremist, you want to take us back to the 19th century when there was no social safety net, when many people had to work 12-16 hours a day to 'live', if you want to call that living, we both know it's a kind of half death. If I was as radical of a leftist as you're a capitalist, I'd be saying, we should have absolute equality, each man must live in the exact same house, eat the exact same food, wear the exact same clothes, drive the exact same car, and anyone who even dreams of having a little more should be executed! Contrary to what you think most people would sooner agree with me than with you, not that I base my opinion on what other people think alone, just saying (I mostly base it on what I find to be reasonable after considering the data). I didn't agree to these rules and regs, to your definition of property or value, its rules of acquisition, themselves very subjective. There's many ways to do property and an economy. There's many ways it has been done in the history of man. Some people have no sense of property at all, or an egoistic or fluid sense of property, and have argued we could have something like a society without property, see Max Stirner. Or property could be defined more based on, continual, frequent or intermittent, physical use or occupancy, which would set arguably natural limits to how much stuff you can own, see Benjamin Tucker. Or on 'mutualism', see Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Or that it should be based on need, which'd also set limits. Or that it should be based on democracy...or equality, or 'equity', a kind of merit independent of the capitalist definition/notion of merit. Some people think intellectual property or usury is illegitimate. Some people think that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, or that if you can't pay your debts, you should be sold into slavery, or that if you're captured in war, you're a slave, and on and on. Some people think that the state should be dismantled, that any taxation at all is a kind of theft or extortion, and on the other hand, some people think everything should belong to the dictator. Where do you draw the line? Myself I believe property is basically subjective. But we can still discuss the implications and consequences of drawing the line here or there, and come to some sort of fuzzy, popular consensus or hard, legal consensus for solving disputes. Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total. Gloominary Thinker Posts: 901 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Disability in the USA, for adults, starts between$600-$700 if you had low earnings for the years up to applying. As far as I know, there is no general welfare benefits otherwise. Individual states have food stamps ($100-$250 mo.) that homeless/disabled can acquire if they can come up with a mailing address and for 6 months only the homeless can receive around a$250-$275 stipend for living expenses, but as you know that doesn't allow for any decent standard of living. My concerns lie with the vanishing middle class and working poor. Sadly, those who do not feel the brunt of the changing economic situation, refuse to seriously consider the future implications, the directions that their own lives are heading albeit slowly but surely. What do you call that morose kind of despondence? That painful, to me, shortsightedness? What's the economic climate in Canada? How much of the population lives as the working poor or worse? In 2015, 14.3% of the USA lived in poverty, but that number seems low. I'd bet that it's more like 35%, but announcing that to the world would shine a negative light on the US's economic status. Here, there are two poverty lines built into the tax codes which I do not understand ($22,000/$10,000+/-), Alaska places the official status at$15,060 for an individual. Since the number fluctuates by state, it's a mess to sort out. I believe that $22,000 tax code used to be$25,000 which is an interesting drop that shows economic decline rather than growth.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7019
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:you want to intervene between the employer and employee to dictate what you subjectively deem as 'fair'.

why is it "fair" for a third-party (you) to stick his nose into other people's business and dealings?

what business is it of yours to dictate whether that wage should be higher or lower

Whose business is it to attempt to influence decisions that involve anyone other than your self?
Is it always best if people make only their own decisions?
Do only people directly involved in a decision have the best perspective on it?

Anti-Socialists love that argument: "who are you to intervene?!" as though it were a simple question with a simple answer Who are the current decision makers to intervene? You might as well ask "who are you to question intervention?"

You need an absolute morality to answer any of these questions with certainty, and good luck grounding anything absolute without falling foul to the problem of what grounds the grounds.

As such, there are no more grounds to reprimand someone for proposing an intervention than there are to back up a lack of intervention. It's not an argument.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Is it a matter of "deserving" more food?

Again, what morality determines who "deserves" anything? At the moment there's just disagreement on what's important.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3315
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

@Wendy

What's the economic climate in Canada? How much of the population lives as the working poor or worse? In 2015, 14.3% of the USA lived in poverty, but that number seems low. I'd bet that it's more like 35%, but announcing that to the world would shine a negative light on the US's economic status.

1 in 7 (or 4.9 million) people in Canada live in poverty.
Between 1980 and 2005, the average earnings among the least wealthy Canadians fell by 20%.
Over the past 25 years, Canada’s population has increased by 30% and yet annual national investment in housing has decreased by 46%.
21% of single mothers in Canada raise their children while living in poverty

http://www.cwp-csp.ca/poverty/just-the-facts/

When you have hundreds of billionaires, 1% of people living in poverty is too much.
There shouldn't be anyone living in poverty, unless they refuse to work.
And the consequences of that will just have to be managed, just as the consequences for the disability/welfare we have now are managed.

Take a look at this:

Average Cost Of New Home -

1960 $12,700 2013$289,500

So homes were 23 times higher in 2013 than in 1960

Average Wages -

1960 $5,315 2012$44,321

Where as wages were 8 times higher in 2013 than in 1960.

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70yearsofpricechange.html

This is one example of how we're all getting poorer, except the top tiers.

Wages versus Housings costs were 3 times better in 1960 than in 2013.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Gloominary wrote:Welfare is about 600 in Canada, disability isn't much more, it's probably about the same or worse in the states relative to the value of their dollar.
600 dollars isn't enough to afford an apartment, let alone pay for food, clothing, transportation...

Again this is just your opinion and subjective perspective. $600 goes a long way in the rural areas of US, rent as low as$200 per month. Some people could live very well on $600 a month. So what you're indicating here is that your subjective lifestyle is more expensive than$600. That doesn't mean it should be a standard for everybody.

Gloominary wrote:That's why many people on welfare and disability end up on the streets, squatting, in shelters, 'couch surfing', living in/out of their vehicles, several people crammed into one tiny apartment, barely eating, eating crap, begging, stealing, and then many people wonder why they can't get their shit together?
It's because they themselves have never been in that situation before...but it could happen to you, if a series of unfortunate events were to befall you, accident, divorce, lay off, sickness, unless you're very rich, it could happen to you.
600 dollars is 7200 dollars a year, that's about 3 times below the poverty line.

I'm pro individual-responsibility. If people can't get their lives together then that's their fault. Your "uplifting" them is neither asked for, wanted, or noble. When you use them as pawns to your political games then it's ignoble, disgraceful. You can't merely pretend to "want to help" others. You have to actually do it or you receive no credence from these socialist views you espouse.

Gloominary wrote:As for why I think wages should be much higher than they are, it's because the economy has grown a lot in the last half a century, so has the cost of living, while wages have relatively stagnated.
Again, that's why the average man and woman both have to work full time to support themselves and their children now, they didn't have to do that several decades ago.
There may be several reasons why this so, but one of, if not, the, reason is: capitalists have an unfair advantage over workers (your average worker needs to get a job many, many times more than big wants to give him a job), and if left unchecked, this advantage tends to grow, because big business tends to incrementally consolidate more and more of the economy, even without corruption, but inevitably it leads to corruption, accelerating the growth.

If you are against women working then you should become anti-feminist and preach traditional gender values, conservative values. Much of the reason things have become so bad, in your own words, is because of the 'feminist', socialist, and other liberal-leftist movements. If conservative values remained then women would be able to stay at home, and men would receive 2x the pay they currently get. This would cause economic downturn, but there is your real "socialist versus capitalist" argument.

Why aren't you a conservative, if you want men to work and women to stay home, mother, and raise children?

Gloominary wrote:Everyone ought to know the 'middle class' has been shrinking for decades, and in all likelihood will continue, until we're back where we were in the 19th century, where conditions weren't much better than that of slaves, because the social services haven't been keeping up with the gains capitalist have made and the losses workers have made that tend to multiply over time.
Mothers and/or fathers should be able to take care of their kids I think, don't you?
They shouldn't be forced to have daycare or nannies, grandparents or older siblings look after them, or leave them on their own.

If unchecked capitalism ultimately leads to some combination of death, slavery and the destruction of the environment, why not?
Why shouldn't workers do away with the or their notion of property altogether, or keep it, but institute occasional reforms to correct enormous disparities, what have they got to lose?
If economic growth is destroying the environment and not only not benefitting, but detrimenting the vast majority of people, in a democracy, what are we losing by taking some of the money back through the exercise of our democratic powers?
Absolutely nothing!

I don't think we should have economic growth at all, because the environment needs to be protected for ourselves and future generations...because climate change, because mass deforestation, pollution and so on, rather I think we should concentrate on putting the resources we already have to better use, but if it does grow, people should grow along with it.

Economic growth occurs because people want to work, to afford a living. People have a demand for revenue, paychecks, $30 per hour wages. All of this drives the economy. Employers are the Supply. Employers supply jobs, to which menial labor works. You cannot stop the economy without causing more poverty, starvation, ruin. Gloominary wrote:I mean according to you, if someone takes a job that pays a penny an hour, that's how much the job is worth. No need for a minimum wage at all. Correct. It's none of your business, or anybody's, to interfere with business dealings. However today there is excessive regulation, government intervention, and socialism (as you espouse). You don't realize that you and your kind have already won, and, caused damage to society. You are acting as the government representative, to force employers to pay certain wages. Isn't your position most unjust and unfair? Gloominary wrote:Desperate people will take any ol' job for anything, they will produce thousands of dollars of product for pennies, while the capitalists make thousands of times more than them in opulence just for cracking the whip or doing nothing, because somehow, through a lot of luck, talent and/or tenacity, they managed to inherit, or build the family fortune, which included a factory, a factory the workers may have produced enough product to purchase thousands of times over. And many, most or all of these workers might not make enough to lift themselves out of these conditions for generations, if ever, because all the factories in their region are paying around the same, as little as humanly possible to subsist on, and very few workers rise in rank and even managers aren't paid that much more, I think anyone can see how absurd this definition of value is. This is fallacious rationale. If workers were paid pennies then they would not afford a room to rent. If they had no room to rent then they wouldn't work at the job long. So it's in the employer's interest to pay wages such that workers can continue to work. And they have paid such wages. And they will continue to do so. Smarter workers are ones who are willing to quit, and join a competitor's factory or business, for higher wages. Employers must compete against each other to attract and retain the best workers. Otherwise a company will have low paid, unskilled, and unreliable workers. They will pay for this cost. So it's not worth it. Gloominary wrote:No public officials have defined what our needs are, it's called the poverty line, our needs are on it or above, and we as a democracy can also discuss what our needs are, and come to some reasonable, objective, or at least intersubjective approximation/notion of what our needs as human beings are. You make it sound like even attempting to do such would be akin to voodoo or black magick. Of course peoples needs vary somewhat, yes a midget might be able to live on 100 dollars of food a day, but the average person can't, and that's what we need to be considering most of all, average people. You can survive in a hole in the wall on gruel for years or even decades, many prisoners in the 19th century had to endure such conditions, but your life expectancy is going to be more than halved, it's going to physically and psychologically disable you to the point where if you could function in a society before, you probably won't be able to now, not to mention you're going to be in a ton of pain and suffering, so let's not pretend that just because you're alive, your needs are being met. Conditions have to be better than that, but of course you don't have to live in a palace either. There's a happy middle between these two extremes and we can discuss what that middle is, I think it's having enough money to afford a roof over your head, a one bedroom apartment if you're single, eat some combination of fresh, whole foods and, whatever you want to call it, industrial foods, take the bus around the city, the poor have to be able to get around, or else how would they find jobs or buy groceries and so on, it's not rocket science, people should have enough to live comfortably or half comfortably, so they don't have to struggle everyday. I may be somewhat of a radical for proposing some of the things I am, but you're also a radical, more radical than me, you're a capitalist extremist, you want to take us back to the 19th century when there was no social safety net, when many people had to work 12-16 hours a day to 'live', if you want to call that living, we both know it's a kind of half death. I just think you don't really care about common people and you're advocating more for yourself and/or the community directly around you. Around the states and world, people do live on little or nothing, and many are complacent or fine with it. There is no need for "a better world" scenario where "everybody is happy" as-if happiness revolves around money, when it doesn't. Gloominary wrote:If I was as radical of a leftist as you're a capitalist, I'd be saying, we should have absolute equality, each man must live in the exact same house, eat the exact same food, wear the exact same clothes, drive the exact same car, and anyone who even dreams of having a little more should be executed! Contrary to what you think most people would sooner agree with me than with you, not that I base my opinion on what other people think alone, just saying (I mostly base it on what I find to be reasonable after considering the data). I didn't agree to these rules and regs, to your definition of property or value, its rules of acquisition, themselves very subjective. There's many ways to do property and an economy. There's many ways it has been done in the history of man. Some people have no sense of property at all, or an egoistic or fluid sense of property, and have argued we could have something like a society without property, see Max Stirner. Or property could be defined more based on, continual, frequent or intermittent, physical use or occupancy, which would set arguably natural limits to how much stuff you can own, see Benjamin Tucker. Or on 'mutualism', see Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Or that it should be based on need, which'd also set limits. Or that it should be based on democracy...or equality, or 'equity', a kind of merit independent of the capitalist definition/notion of merit. Some people think intellectual property or usury is illegitimate. Some people think that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, or that if you can't pay your debts, you should be sold into slavery, or that if you're captured in war, you're a slave, and on and on. Some people think that the state should be dismantled, that any taxation at all is a kind of theft or extortion, and on the other hand, some people think everything should belong to the dictator. Where do you draw the line? Myself I believe property is basically subjective. But we can still discuss the implications and consequences of drawing the line here or there, and come to some sort of fuzzy, popular consensus or hard, legal consensus for solving disputes. The bottom-line is that you are pro-third-party intervention, pro-government, pro-socialist. You are against business dealings between two people. If it's unfair, paying pennies, or whatever, then it's still none of your business. Rather you presume that intervention is automatically good or righteous, that it "should" be. Furthermore your claims about minimum wage do not presume the conclusions that you claim, that "people would be happier", "society would be better", or economic feasibility. In fact you mentioned that you want to see the economy plummet. So that is also presumed within your intentions for a$30 minimum wage.

Not only is it unrealistic but your idealism is flawed as well. It won't necessarily "help" anybody but yourself. And once inflation would kick in, and it would, then it wouldn't necessarily help poor or middle class people either. All it would do is create economic stagnancy and class immobility. People would not be able to move from poor to middle class, or middle class to rich. The US is based on high class mobility. A poor person can become rich, and rich can become poor. However your socialistic mentality has taken power and even this is barely true today.

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Silhouette wrote:Whose business is it to attempt to influence decisions that involve anyone other than your self?
Is it always best if people make only their own decisions?
Do only people directly involved in a decision have the best perspective on it?

It doesn't matter.

If you want to intervene in people's private affairs and business then you need to justify that to begin with. I don't need to justify anything as I don't think (government) or any third-party should necessarily, by law intervene and oversee personal dealings. However the West is already socialistic and advanced from colonial libertarianism. In the 1800s, in the West, men could make any dealings they want. But now things have changed (for the worse), and pro-government liberals, socialists, and other forms of communists want more third-party intervention.

Same is occurring with sexual relationships and whatnot too. Not only is there a third-party intervening in business dealings, but also a third-party intervening in sexual dealings too.

I think everybody who is pro-third-party interventionist are ones who want to profit off of other people's successes. It's not enough that two people can have successful dealings and mutually beneficial relationships, but the third-party mongers want a piece of the pie too, and need to enforce mob-mentality to get it. "I deserve" mentality. "I deserve" $30 per hour minimum wage. "I deserve" healthcare. "I deserve" happiness in life. No you don't. You don't deserve shit. People get these things because they work, deal, risk in life. It has a cost, and third-party interventionists want to skip the risks and costs, and just get a piece of the pie by whining for it, or manipulating people for it. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1089 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Can you post links to places that have 200 dollar rent? You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square. Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too. What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Mr Reasonable resident contrarian Posts: 25355 Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage$600 goes a long way in the rural areas of US, rent as low as $200 per month. I'd be interested in seeing those links too. I live in the rural US and you cannot even rent a sleeping room for$200.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7019
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

@Wrong

Again this is just your opinion and subjective perspective. $600 goes a long way in the rural areas of US, rent as low as$200 per month. Some people could live very well on $600 a month. So what you're indicating here is that your subjective lifestyle is more expensive than$600. That doesn't mean it should be a standard for everybody.

Welfare in BC Canada is 610, and let me tell you, the average rent is higher than 610.

"The graphic puts Vancouver as the third most expensive city to rent a one-bedroom ($1,159), behind the Northwest Territories capital and Burlington, Ont., roughly an hour's drive from Toronto. The average rental rate for a one-bedroom was$912 in Victoria, $1,083 in Richmond,$1,019 in Burnaby and $855 in Surrey. Renters paid an average of$889 in Langley, $744 in Abbotsford,$864 in Kelowna and $911 in Saanich. Up north, the average one-bedroom rate was$809 in Fort St. John."

It's like that almost everywhere in Canada and probably the US tho, welfare just doesn't cut it.

I'm pro individual-responsibility. If people can't get their lives together then that's their fault.

I'm not for or against individual responsibility, depends on context.
Sometimes it's more the fault of the person, sometimes it's more the fault of their environment.

You make it like I alone am in the position to uplift.
I'm giving people my opinion, and my reasons for it, if they agree with me, they can vote socialist, if they don't, they can vote capitalist or they don't have to vote.

If you are against women working then you should become anti-feminist and preach traditional gender values, conservative values.

It's not that I'm against women working, it's that I'm against both parents having to work full time.
If some parents want to do the traditional thing, where the man works full time and the woman stays home, that's fine by me, if they want to do the modern thing, where they share responsibilities or the man stays home while the woman works full time, that's also fine by me.
That being said, there are some things I'm 'conservative' on, I'm generally anti-immigration and pro-gun, for example.

Economic growth occurs because people want to work, to afford a living. People have a demand for revenue, paychecks, $30 per hour wages. All of this drives the economy. Employers are the Supply. Employers supply jobs, to which menial labor works. You cannot stop the economy without causing more poverty, starvation, ruin. It occurs because machines have replaced workers for the production and provision of necessary goods and services, such as food production, capitalists lay off excess workers, and rehire them to produce and provide increasingly unnecessary goods and services, gradually destroying the environment in the process. This shouldn't've occurred nearly as much as it did, if at all. Now measures must be taken to correct this totally unsustainable, self-destructive system, anarchism, communism, socialism and syndicalism are some alternatives. It's none of your business, or anybody's, to interfere with business dealings. That's your opinion. My opinion is it's, our business, as a democracy, and I'm going to encourage people to vote socialist. However today there is excessive regulation, government intervention, and socialism (as you espoused). So it's not that you're against regulation of the economy, it's that you're against excess regulation? You don't realize that you and your kind have already won, and, caused damage to society. Firstly, I'm not a socialist nor a capitalist, I'm advocating for moderation here, as I see it, not extremes, however I'd certainly rather see an extreme left economy than an extreme right. Secondly, socialists have hardly won anything, there's too much corporatism, cartels, corporate welfare, tax breaks/loopholes. Most of the economy is ran by/for big business, not by the state or the workers themselves directly. And from my research, there was more socialism before the 1980s than there is now, which's why things were better for working people and the unemployed then. If workers were paid pennies then they would not afford a room to rent. Capitalists could start making apartments the size of jail cells, like they do in China. Then they can cram several people into each of them like sardines. There's always a to save a buck, ye of little faith in capitalist ingenuity! Smarter workers are ones who are willing to quit, and join a competitor's factory or business, for higher wages. Employers must compete against each other to attract and retain the best workers. Otherwise a company will have low paid, unskilled, and unreliable workers. They will pay for this cost. So it's not worth it. In practice this doesn't work, or wages would be increasing and prices stagnating. I just think you don't really care about common people and you're advocating more for yourself and/or the community directly around you. Around the states and world, people do live on little or nothing, and many are complacent or fine with it. There is no need for "a better world" scenario where "everybody is happy" as-if happiness revolves around money, when it doesn't. I am a common person with a common income, maybe you're not. Many people aren't fine with it tho, and I'm telling them they don't have to settle for it, they can vote socialist. That's rich, the capitalist is telling me happiness doesn't revolve around money. Tell that to big business who've fired millions of workers and shipped jobs overseas to China and Mexico, where they pay men, women and children pennies, working 12-16 hour days to manufacture shoes and things. Where there's locks on the doors so they can't leave, suicide nets and union busters, because workers over there don't have state protections against such practices like we do over here. Money itself can't buy happiness, but being above the poverty line helps. In fact you mentioned that you want to see the economy plummet. So that is also presumed within your intentions for a$30 minimum wage.

I would like to see conditions improve a little for the middle, working and unemployed classes, but economically stagnate or decline as a whole.
This seems perfectly feasible to me, if we were able to grow the economy while shrinking the middle and lower classes, we should be able to shrink the economy while growing the middle and lower classes, because a growing economy isn't good for climate change, deforestation and pollution.
Again we're in the middle of an ecological crisis, a mass extinction event, growth is no longer an option.

Not only is it unrealistic but your idealism is flawed as well. It won't necessarily "help" anybody but yourself. And once inflation would kick in, and it would, then it wouldn't necessarily help poor or middle class people either.

It would help the poor and the middle class.
Once inflation kicks in, we'll just have to raise it to 60 dollars.

Or perhaps better yet, government can take over large swathes of the essential industries, like food and housing.
They could bypass banks and taxation, print the money to do it debt free, and run things the opposite way capitalists run them, for the benefit of workers and consumers: maximize employment, wages and minimize prices.

All it would do is create economic stagnancy and class immobility. People would not be able to move from poor to middle class, or middle class to rich. The US is based on high class mobility. A poor person can become rich, and rich can become poor. However your socialistic mentality has taken power and even this is barely true today.

Actually it would increase class mobility, increasing wages, and welfare for those who can't work or find a job is mobility itself, it's the majority moving upward, and once they have surplus income, they can use it to start their own business, or educate themselves, or invest, if they like, or they can be happy with what they have.
Really all that matters is you have enough money to live fairly comfortably, so you're secure, being a multimillionaire or billionaire doesn't make you happier or healthier statistically, so really there's no point in having high class mobility so long as your needs are met.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

@Wrong

Smarter workers are ones who are willing to quit, and join a competitor's factory or business, for higher wages. Employers must compete against each other to attract and retain the best workers. Otherwise a company will have low paid, unskilled, and unreliable workers. They will pay for this cost. So it's not worth it.

Let me readdress this, firstly, employers can still hold out for a better deal much longer than employees can, and secondly:

Let's say there's a market with 10 corporations in a region of the world manufacturing and distributing clothes.
On the one hand, they're competing with workers and consumers, trying to pay workers as little as possible and charge consumers as much as possible, on the other hand, they're competing with each other, trying to attract as many workers and customers as possible, right?
Seems like things would sort of balance themselves out overall, but I don't think so.

This is what really tends to happen: one corporation ends up being a lot or even just a little bit better than the others, through some combination of luck, talent and tenacity.
Word gets out and before you know it, everyone wants to work for them and shop there.
Sooner or later all the other corporations have closed shop, and only one remains.
Now they have a monopoly, there are no competitors in this region, and it would be, not impossible, but exceedingly difficult for a small business to rise up and start competing with them.

Now that they have a monopoly, gradually they'll pay employees as little as possible, and charge consumers as much as possible.
People will just have to accept it if they don't want to go naked.
If a small business rises up and tries to do anything about it, they might not even be able to purchase the resources to do it, because the corporation is buying them all up at a higher price the small business can afford if they have to, outbid them.
Or if the small business manages to get going, they'll just buy the small business up and either close it down, or keep it going and jack up the prices while lowering the wages, almost everyone has their price, even if they think they're on a mission.

And then of course they also use 'underhanded' tactics, like making laws, rules and regulations suitable to themselves and not suitable to potential rivals/up-and-comers, so you have to do things exactly the way they do them or else.
Hell, they might just pay the mob to burn your business down if necessary, but even without underhanded tactics, there's a strong tendency towards monopolization, but the underhanded tactics are inevitable anyway.

You can't really have much of a democracy or capitalist kind of 'free' market (it's not the only kind of free market actually) when you have these megabanks and corporations, where 1% of the people possess 80% of the wealth because they just buy the lawmakers and politicians.
Again, almost everyone has their price.
And that's why we started out with nearly pure capitalism and ended up like this, not because of some socialist conspiracy or plot like this guy will try to make it out to be, but because capitalism leads to fewer and fewer competitors over time, and the fewer competitors there are, the more they can cement/solidify their stranglehold on the economy.

It doesn't eve have to get down to just corporation, if there's only a few big corporations of roughly equal wealth/power, they can play it safe and partly or fully merge, or they can all agree not to pay workers more than x, or charge consumers more than x, so they don't get into a wage/price war, and one of them will only ever break this rule if they somehow gain a major advantage/disadvantage, which will lead to few competitors still.

As corporations get massive, the only way to compete with them is either through the state, coercively, or through collective bargaining/unions, or through revolution, either that or just acquiesce.
Typically the masses just don't have the foresight to compete very effectively, in part because they've swallowed the cool aid, and you end up with these monstrous disparities.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

I live in a small rural community that has one road in and out. The closest city-sized area is almost 6 hours away. We have one service station, one small grocery store, one small hardware store, one convenience store and one hole in the wall place to get a crappy hamburger. All of these places employ more people than they have a need for, at the sacrifice of their profits, just to keep some people employed in the town. There are few other employment opportunities locally. Due to a recent minimum wage hike we have seen the convenience store being run by the owner where it used to be run by people making a wage. The food place has cut hours by 25%. The hardware store let go of an employee and the grocery store is now closed on Sundays and Mondays, the hiring sign that was permanently in the window for young teenagers to get their first job has now been taken down.

Leftist intelligence = seeing the symptom of a problem and thinking they can just legislate the symptom away without addressing the problem because it would force them to admit they are wrong....About pretty much everything.
Inconvenient Reality

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:47 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Gloominary wrote:Welfare in BC Canada is 610, and let me tell you, the average rent is higher than 610.

"The graphic puts Vancouver as the third most expensive city to rent a one-bedroom ($1,159), behind the Northwest Territories capital and Burlington, Ont., roughly an hour's drive from Toronto. The average rental rate for a one-bedroom was$912 in Victoria, $1,083 in Richmond,$1,019 in Burnaby and $855 in Surrey. Renters paid an average of$889 in Langley, $744 in Abbotsford,$864 in Kelowna and $911 in Saanich. Up north, the average one-bedroom rate was$809 in Fort St. John."

It's like that almost everywhere in Canada and probably the US tho, welfare just doesn't cut it.

So as I mentioned, your push for \$30 per hour is only relative to your city and state, and not applicable for anywhere else. You're addressing local economics, if anything at all. Obviously wages are higher or "should be" higher in cities and high, densely populated areas. They are higher. And again, for the reason I mentioned, employers are forced to pay higher wages according to the rents in local areas. Employers are at least willing to pay that much. Because employers need workers.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:https://wichita.craigslist.org/roo/d/275-month-all-bills-paid/6466213814.html

Firstly, this sounds like a room for rent in a house, not an apartment.

Secondly, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Room for rent. 275.00 month all bills paid. Washer and dryer. Dish washer. Central heat and air. Asian females welcome.
Hmmm, I wonder why Asian females would be especially welcome?
Unfortunately for me my imagination is pretty poor...moving on.

Thirdly, most people in North America are urban, so economics should reflect urban reality more than rural.
That being said, sometimes I wonder if there should be two sets of law and economics, urban law/economics, and rural.
But if there is to be one set of law/economics, income assistance should cover both their needs, not only rural people.
Let me tell you in BC, it's not just apartments in urban areas but rural, some of those towns listed were rural, they were from all over BC, not just from in around Vancouver (the largest city) and Victoria (the capital), and BC is a microcosm, reflecting the macrocosm of Canada.

Lastly, you can occasionally find an excellent deal on craigslist, that doesn't mean it's indicative of the average rent in that region, and that's what we're looking for, the average, because most people are going to have to settle for that.

And people want their own apartment, most Asian females don't want to have to sleep in some strange man's bedroom.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:https://wichita.craigslist.org/roo/d/275-month-all-bills-paid/6466213814.html

Hahaha...Asian females welcome! Yah, that's legit by a MGTOW! I can't stop laughing!

And people want their own apartment, most Asian females don't want to have to sleep in some strange man's bedroom.

Damn women are so unreasonable!

Minutes have passed and I still want to burst into laughter.

*bursting into explosive howling*
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7019
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Whose business is it to attempt to influence decisions that involve anyone other than your self?
Is it always best if people make only their own decisions?
Do only people directly involved in a decision have the best perspective on it?

It doesn't matter.

Great, so I guess we don't need sports referees, counselors, independent auditors, even parents etc., because "ur wrong" (and) can just dismiss the entire issue of intervention out of hand, and unthinkingly reel off the same old spiel copied off all those "tough-talking" anti-Socialists.

Urwrong. Let me tell you why Urwrong.

The left aren't all thinking in that same Machiavellian way that you probably assume more as a reflection of your own thinking than actually having a clue what others are thinking (no doubt not even asking). Let me lead by example: is this how you think and do you tend to be suspicious of others in general?
I'm sure some rightists in leftists' clothing "deserve" your suspicion, but generally the reasoning has nothing to do with that arbitrary notion of "deserve", which I already briefly commented on and you didn't address - assuming you even read past the first three lines I wrote in my short post.
The fact is that we are able to easily share the massive surplus that we create mostly automatically through machinery and infrastructure that was in many ways only possible due to people who are already dead. But we don't.

What are we supposed to do with this ridiculous notion of only "deserving" the equivalent of what you yourself have contributed? Continually shove cash into the graves of late influential contributors and the circuit boards of computers? They did most of the work, you don't deserve shit.

Maybe we should keep track of all the help you "didn't deserve" in childhood because you weren't contributing yourself, and only allow you to get paid once that debt is cleared - and let's include interest and take into account inflation, why not? That's what everyone already does in our current economy, and obviously intervening with anything like that is out of the question All education and investment should not be interfered with, let's let those who have all the money, contacts, information and other resources set the terms directly with people with much less of all of those things - I'm sure there won't be any conflict of interest or partiality in such situations that would require a 3rd party to supervise in order for any semblance of fairness to exist!

How do you even determine equivalency between production and consumption?! The current model is just "whatever you can get away with within defensible interpretations of law". That's all "the market" is. Hide how much you as an employer get as your income through paying people much less than what they earn "your" company (the definition of profit, which many people probably don't appreciate or even know), because they will undercut each other just to get any income at all through fear of the shitty alternative that is unemployment, and you can benefit from this! Again, no semblance of fairness that obviously don't need any intervention...

Seriously now though, why not instead aim for an economy that yields optimal output for minimal input? The definition of efficiency. I strongly suspect that we could achieve all the results we achieve today and more, much more efficiently than we currently do if we just eradicated all the injustice at the ideological heart of Western economic models.
Last edited by Silhouette on Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3315
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

WendyDarling wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:https://wichita.craigslist.org/roo/d/275-month-all-bills-paid/6466213814.html

Hahaha...Asian females welcome! Yah, that's legit by a MGTOW! I can't stop laughing!

And people want their own apartment, most Asian females don't want to have to sleep in some strange man's bedroom.

Damn women are so unreasonable!

Minutes have passed and I still want to burst into laughter.

*bursting into explosive howling*

Oh, it's probably innocent.

He probably just wants some Asian female to teach him the fine art of feng shui.

Aren't we all looking for a little 'cultural enrichment' these days?

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Don't get me wrong, no system is perfect, far from it, and every system is going to have corruption, because humans can be greedy, selfish and violent animals, some more than others, often even contrary to their own interests.
Of course socialism can be corrupted too, some corruption is unavoidable.
I'm arguing that socialism, and some other schools of thought on the left, there's more than one, is better than capitalism, or at least what we really need right now.

Capitalism and its propensity to generate enormous economic growth, and all the good/bad that comes with that, is obsolete at this stage of our development.
Because things aren't good, and in all likelihood are going to get a hell of a lot worse: corruption/disparities are monstrous, our health is questionably diminishing, and nature is unquestionably diminishing.
Make no mistake, this is capitalism we're under, fundamentally, with some corporatism and a pathetic amount of socialism tossed in.

I wholeheartedly believe we need to begin seriously examining alternatives as individuals and as a democracy, make preparations to change course during this brief calm, if our civilization is to weather the coming storms ahead.
So vote for a third party, the liberals/conservatives of Canada or the republicrats of the US are totally corrupt, but don't vote libertarian, they might be a little bit better than republicans in some ways, but worse in others and basically more of the same.
Vote NDP, Green, some other party or independent.

We need a major min wage increase, or better yet, we need to take over food and housing, make them affordable, and save the environment.
The game is no longer about how much wealth we can generate if it ever should've been in the first place, now it's about putting all that wealth to good use.
Presently we are squandering it on war and shopping malls while millions live in poverty and thousands of species are dying, it's absolutely appalling.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

PreviousNext