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.
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.
Hahaha…Asian females welcome! Yah, that’s legit by a MGTOW! I can’t stop laughing!
Damn women are so unreasonable!
Minutes have passed and I still want to burst into laughter. 
bursting into explosive howling
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.
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? 
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.
Doesn’t matter, there are rooms for rent in the US at $200 per rent.
You, Wendy, and Reasonable are all wrong.
Obviously if you pay more, you get more.
You are. Liberal-leftist-socialists should be spending 50% of their own time and money on the poor, before asking anybody else to spend more. If you don’t then you’re just a hypocrite.
It’s not “an opinion”. For you to stick your hand into other people’s dealings, and then complain about fairness, is hypocrisy. Taxation is theft. You’re merely trying to justify your thievery, taking the profits and successes of others. Taking bites of a pie you had no part in making.
I’m against the momentum of the modern world going liberal-left and towards more socialism, towards more third-party meddling and entitlement.
Corporations have taken advantage of socialistic idealists, such as yourself, and raked in the profits of your mistakes.
Corporations have ways around laws such as $30 minimum, by cutting worker hours, less hiring, laying off workers, etc.
The larger corporations are relatively immune to socialistic-leftist meddling. They can afford to get around all social-government interventions. Small businesses, small corporations, small industries, will all be destroyed. Thus the world will be worse off by socialistic-leftist meddling. Socialists and leftists are not actually targeting or penalizing the ones they hope to, with inept understanding of economics. Liberal-leftists try to penalize the “top 1%” but end up hurting the middle class more. This is another reason why “economic equality” cannot be enforced, especially not through democracy and legislation. Corporations will pay politicians off anyway, who do you think sponsors election campaigns?
You’re the one claiming “everybody deserves” (a place to live).
Then you’re complaining that it’s not big enough. It’s a slippery-slope. Apparently you have no limit. You want everybody sitting on gold toilets with gold toilet paper?
You obviously don’t know China very well. They’re overpopulated. In Tokyo, it’s normal to be packed in like sardines. I don’t think you really care that much. Moot point.
It does work, which is mostly why minimum wage has climbed so high in the first place. Workers demand more pay with or without third-party intervention. Employers must compete against other employers.
Different societies and groups of humans want and decide upon different things.
US attitudes are for pro-capitalism, pro class mobility, and less socialistic interventions. What works in one place, does not work in another ($30 minimum wage).
Corporations are neither necessarily bad or necessarily good. As you said, they are an end-result. Is it bad that computers were monopolized at one point, with IBM, Microsoft, and Intel running the industry? No, they made computers cheap for everybody, for personal use, and led to the world as it is today. Apple competed out of survival. Eventually laws were passed to curtail and cut-up Microsoft. There were pros and cons to the Microsoft monopoly.
But the average wage of Microsoft employees rose, they did not fall. So your conjectures are simply wrong. Microsoft employees and other software/hardware engineers, have rose very high over the past 50 years. So your economic conjectures just do not paint the reality on the ground.
There are third-party intervention in all things. Parenting, as you mention, is a form of social intervention. But, according to my point, do you want the government intervening into the personal and private lives of families? It’s one thing for parents to dictate over children. It’s another for foreigners, moral crusaders, politicians, and the rest of society.
Here’s the deal, when somebody is successful, when two parents successfully raise a family, then others (Socialists) will want to intervene and take credit, or take advantage, of those successes. That’s what I’m against. I’m more for appropriating causes and responsibility, where they belong. By mob-rule, democrats, leftists, liberals, socialists, have all gained too much power, and have the gumption and gall to think they can go around claiming anybody and anything, even “the upbringing” of private families.
Sex. Economy. Do socialists-liberal-leftists have any limits of what they can’t or won’t stick their nose in?
There is already third-party intervention. I already admitted that. There is already taxation…25% or more, of your income, taken out of your pocket, in the “interests of general society”. Somebody is already profiting off your work and life.
Dead people can’t profit off their own labor, but I do agree with royalties and that families of inventor’s, or according to their wills and words, should get some royalties. Bill Gates, for example, if he wants to give away most of his fortune and success to whomever he wants, then that’s his business. Socialists would be the one try to tax it, by taxing death, inheritance, anything they can get their hands on.
Bullshit, I’ve worked my ass off in life. I deserve every cent I made, and possibly, the amounts taken by taxation. I’m not against all taxation. In the US it’s relatively fair. I agree with public roads and the military. That’s about it though. I’m against education spending. There should be more privatization and responsibility of parents to educate their own children.
There’s already too much socialistic interventions. And it’s pushing further left and socialistic. I’m against that.
Like you say, there is surplus. But that “surplus” comes from the third-party intervention. People don’t pay taxes out of charity. They pay because they have to, are forced to, by mob-rule. If a few people don’t pay taxes then the rest of society hunts them down, because they don’t want a few people cheating the system while the rest have to pay.
$275 is not $200. Try again, try to find an even hornier guy’s ad. Heck, place one yourself for $1.99 and prove us all way wrong. 
It hurts being wrong doesn’t it?
What’s even funnier is that you are actually serious when you ask me such.
There are 3 bedrooms in arkansas for $700, that’s about $200 each room.
How many times would you like to be wrong??
How is a person with an allotted $200 for rent supposed to rent that $700 house? Where are they going to come up with the security deposit? Not to mention the other $500? Even if it was simple and safe to rent a room from some stranger soliciting on craiglist, it would have to be the $200 that you spoke of (not $275…you’re a stubborn boy), there’d have to be a keyed entry to your private quarters, and no security deposit. Then there’d be negotiations on utilities for you’d have very little $ to work with. I realize that you enjoy being the thorn in my side and others, but it’s not doable with $600 in a city or a rural area, even if you made use of social program freebies or reduced rate services.
Post the link.
Don’t get me wrong, you’re probably telling the truth, but I think you owe it to the thread to post it.
That being said, we shouldn’t be basing economic policy off of a few ads on craigslist, many of them are outright scams, and even the ones that aren’t, often don’t do things above board, they may not pay taxes, they may not follow building codes, they may not have working appliances and so on.
We should be basing economic policy on sound statistics, and 610 isn’t going to cut it anywhere in Canada, and whatever welfare a, b or c state is offering probably isn’t going to cut it either.
A few exceptions, a room here or there in some backwater redneck ghettos or rural slums don’t disprove the rule, and economic policy has to be based on the rule, we cannot micromanage, or plan for every detail.
People can’t just hightail it out of the city en masse, and that’s where the majority of people live in Canada and the states, in the city, and in apartments.
People, especially women and single moms, ought to be entitled to safer living quarters than this.
fayar.craigslist.org/apa/d/see- … 18061.html
You all should do your homework.
Your “$30 per hour wage” dreams are delusional and don’t apply across the country. Maybe in a densely populated city center but you’re discounting the reality. Dreams built on delusions.
Local economies dictate prices, wages, living standards, etc. Monopolies aren’t necessarily bad or evil. In fact you should thank monopolization for causing $500-$1000 personal computers, what you’re using right now. “Thank you Microsoft!”
Again, a few or even some exceptions don’t disprove the rule.
The rule is: for the last half a century, wages have been relatively stagnating and the price of essentials, which’re what really matter, are relatively rising, people are getting poorer and poorer.
If capitalism was working for the environment, or for the middle and lower classes, than fine, if statistically I made more this year than last year, and more last year than the year before, excellent, but that’s not the case, and that’s grounds for considering serious reforms, patching up a few holes here or there isn’t going to cut it, the system needs an overhaul.
Capitalism is probably one of, if not the greatest system we have for generating wealth or productivity, I think few people argue this, because people, especially or particularly the middle and working classes have to work really hard, but generating productivity isn’t the sole criterion of the good.
Are the people benefitting, is the environment, are we producing things people really need, or even truly want, or are we just producing shit to produce shit?
Some things I think most people think are great like computers (altho they have their drawbacks, which’s a whole other topic) have come out of the last half a century, so I’ll give you that, but a lot of stuff we really didn’t need has too, and the ecological time clock is ticking.
We need less productivity, for the sake of the environment, the poor shouldn’t be forced to work more than the economy needs them to in order to sustain itself.
Wrong, you are not being honest or realistic. You cannot rent a $650 home on a fixed income of $600. You have to find a place that is priced at $200 like you said. Not $225. Not $250. Not $275. $200 which is what you said exists.
This is blatantly false. Wages have increased and continue to increase. $10 an hour was unheard of in the 1970s. A gallon of gas used to be $0.50. Candy bars used to be dimes and nickles. Employee wages and inflation are strongly linked together. And usually employee wages dictate inflation, even more than loan rates. If the average member of any population gets a $1.00 wage bump, prices will go up for groceries, gas, rent, and other basics. So increasing wages doesn’t necessarily mean “better off”. As I mentioned, the best you can hope for, based on wage along, is class fluidity and moving between rich to poor, or poor to rich, easier.
This thread isn’t about the environment. It’s about the minimum wage.
If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.
It seems pretty obvious to me that what you think would happen, from $30 per hour wages, wouldn’t happen. Your knowledge of economics is all mixed up, beginning with the fact, that employers and employees dictate average wages, based on their own personal and private interests. Third-party meddling doesn’t necessarily “help” anybody. Especially when there is already a tax system and minimum wage laws were already raised, and continue to raise slowly.
It’s not “magic solution”. It would probably harm your own convictions more than help too, which is what I’ve pinpointed throughout this thread.
So in short, my conclusion is, even if you were to raise the minimum wage $30 per hour then it wouldn’t help in the ways you believe it would, and would probably do more harm in the long run than anything else.
I don’t believe in eternal economic growth. Western civilization is at a point of post-colonialistic progress. Capitalism is running out of areas and avenues to exploit, and henceforth, average people are turning to socialism to gouge more money out of society. But that hurts more than helps, and it’s at the cost of personal freedoms and individuality, which I support. Therefore I’m solidly against it. Average western people have already given up too many freedoms for security.
If people were actually ‘liberal’ then they would agree with me. Liberty is being stripped away by socialism. Economic liberalism is backward. Liberty means less taxation, third-party intervention, and “minimum wage” laws. Today’s liberals are backward, and the exact opposite of what they used to be.