## 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

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

Moderator: Uccisore

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

WendyDarling wrote:The national US minimum wage is $7.25 not$10 and it hasn't increased nationally since 2009.

Actually US citizens pay more in taxes than Scandinavians do in their respective countries. From what I read, their flat tax rate of around 60% doesn't begin until one earns 1.5 more than the average income. Do those other countries pay all the national, state, and local taxes on top of their income taxes, such as sales tax, state tax, county tax, hotel/entertainment tax, inheritance tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, gasoline tax, etc, etc? No, they don't and that makes USA taxes accumulatively higher than all other 1st world countries.

Flagrantly false.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Many states also have minimum wage laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _tax_rates Wrong, either you agree with the wiki link or you provide more accurate information. Once you agree, I'll show you exactly how much more YOU'RE WRONG. 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: 6912 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Urwrongx1000 wrote:Competition is a good thing, and the very force that has led to western success and surplus. You make it sound like a bad thing. Competition means higher wages for workers, when employers compete for skilled, educated, loyal, and competent workers. Competition means lower consumer costs, when companies compete to sell the same good. Capitalism is good for these reasons. Success leads to monopolization, domination of a few corporations over small businesses and smaller corporations. Average people all enjoy the benefits of this. Thus it is hypocritical for you and others to speak against it, or speak of it negatively. Important distinction here: monopolisation in a capitalist environment theoretically leads to higher prices than what they would be if competition undercut them and offered a similar enough product at a lower price, forcing a response etc. Monopolisation by the government in a non-capitalist environment doesn't have the same effect because there isn't incentive for any owner to push up prices for more profit (since there's no comparable product, so you either pay more or go without entirely). In this case competition is a bad thing. No hypocrisy here - we don't see so much benefit once competitions start to be won, once that happens the benefits we still enjoy were already established and still exist, despite starting to go bad. There is inertia because the products are already "out there" providing value after they were sold at a time when things were better. Competition can be a good thing when the Classical Liberal theory of perfect competition is approached, but in practice companies use things like advertising to exploit consumer irrationality such that they can forge their own pseudo-monopoly from what is essentially the same product as others being seen more as a product in its own right. Economies of scale, mergers and acquisitions, the tendency in a competitive environment is highly in favour of any company that happens to get an edge - the only disadvantages are the possibility of losing track of the minutia and that since bigger sums are involved, things can go wrong in a bigger way. But good management and delegation can prevent that. There need to be factors that keep competitions from being won. I watched an interesting video on youtube that described how these economic concepts occur in nature with application to vegetation. We really see the benefits of diversity and perfect competition in hostile and poor environments - where there are natural controls to curtail the wins of any one species over another. Once environments become rich and hospitable, winners can pull away, diversity and competition shrivel. THIS is the reason that Capitalism is so praised - it naturally lent itself to enriching our formerly poorer and more diverse environments. It's also the reason why it is no longer appropriate. We still enjoy the prosperity it brought about because it's still present in society, but we are coming to enjoy it less and less over time. I appreciate what it did, but it's entirely appropriate to speak of it negatively now. Urwrongx1000 wrote:"The government", society, third-parties, already receive a large chunk of people's income, productivity, and welfare. Yes, we have a public sector in western economies. You are not wrong. The point is not whether or not we have too much or too little taxation, it's that we have measures in place to stem inequality. A society that has the most mobility and takes advantage of as much of the population as possible gives fair opportunity and doesn't distance the top from the bottom to such a degree that there's a complete disconnect. Competition needs to be kept in check for optimal outcome - that's what government should be for, but at the moment it's not. Urwrongx1000 wrote:And you're right to say, they're not asking for it. You pay, or you go to jail. That's force. So people asking for charity on top of this, as Gloom does, is rather insulting. Don't you have a big enough piece of the pie as is, but you want more? When force still doesn't do the job by itself, and it doesn't because the government isn't doing the job its supposed to do (as I just mentioned above), then yes, we still need charity - at least the rich won't whine about charity as much, because it feels like it's their own choice, when really they're just doing it for their own reputation and to alleviate any guilt they may or may not feel. This is quite apparent because throwing money at something isn't doing actually anything yourself, it's getting other people to care so you don't have to, and the money is going towards those running the charity as well as the actual cause - sometimes people are literally making money out of you thinking you're putting all your money towards people who need it. Also the charities people often choose tend to be in their own interest anyway - if they really cared about the poor, they wouldn't just donate to them, they'd fight to change the system that makes them poor even though it's the same system that makes them rich. As if. And it's not like they wouldn't be able to continue to offer what they offered to make them rich if the standard deviations of income distributions were shrunk, they're just being (understandably?) selfish. Urwrongx1000 wrote:That's the socialist agenda, wanting more. What a ridiculous thing to say. As if that's not the case for capitalism many times more so. Urwrongx1000 wrote:After the employer or company owner pays you for the wage you shake hands upon, the employee owes and owns nothing. The deal is done. If employees want stock or 'ownership' of their work after wages, then that's up to the employer and employee to decide. Some companies do offer stock options for their employees, especially in tech related fields where engineers could potentially copyright their work. It varies from field to field. A shoemaker isn't going to have interest in selling the individual pairs of shoes, as it would be inefficient for employees to do so. Thus it is the business owner who benefits from companies as a whole. There is a difference between communicating consent and feeling consent. You can give consent without really consenting if there is a power imbalance and/or a feeling of choice. The deal is done, but that doesn't fully justify it, I'm sorry. If unemployment was a viable option for anyone, low skilled workers wouldn't be forced to consent to bad deals just to get by. Funding unemployment is actually a highly valuable economic and moral device. The employed love to hate on them out of jealousy and/or high-horse virtue ethics, but they fulfill an inevitable if not a necessary role nonetheless. Yes it is possible to get the employees in on some of the boons that the employer enjoys, and in some cases this happens and that's great. In most case this doesn't happen and that's not great. Employers benefit from low skilled work just as much as they do from high skilled work (if not more because it's cheaper due to high supply), so in the former case this just contributes to inequality even more. Urwrongx1000 wrote:I disagree and it sounds to me like you don't know rich people personally. I know a few, and upper middle class people. Most of the rich are regular people. It's not until the top 1% that elitism really becomes apparent, and even then, some of those people actually did work for what they gained. Or took risks for it. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, did they not earn what they made? They took risks. They reaped the reward. It's like roulette, where socialists want a cut of the earnings of the guy who bets it all on a number. That's unjust. I'm just going by their own words - I believe my comment about a pissing contest was in reference to a quote by Donald Trump who said it wasn't about the money for him, it was about keeping score. You see examples of the super-rich doing this all the time, trying to outdo each other with the biggest super-yacht for example. I don't know these people, but there's plenty of coverage on their petty rivalries. Let them keep score, sure, just not with currency. I grew up in the upper middle class and I know very well how just as pettily competitive they are. Bill Gates was instrumental in developing computer technology in its infancy. That's awesome and I'm so glad for people like that and their hard work - let them be rewarded. But with incomes that are in excess of entire countries' GDPs? No, that's beyond ridiculous. How can one person, in themselves I mean, be more valuable than entire countries of people? The inventions he had a part in developing benefited loads of people to a huge extent, I know, but come on - on a human level this has no justification. Warren Buffet - didn't he just make good investment decisions? I'm sure there's an element of skill involved, but statistically someone was going to emerge lucky in that one. As if he was the only one with these skills who tried to do exactly the same thing.... And as I said, funding enterprises that pay their workers less than the workers earn the company isn't productivity - there's no virtue to what he did. Government can fund things too, big whoop. Urwrongx1000 wrote:I understand that there are levels of responsibility, that many people are born in the lowest rims of society. That's no excuse though. That's the way morality, accountability, and responsibility work. Kant was right. It's universal. It doesn't matter how rich and silver-spooned you were. It doesn't matter if you were born a slave. If individuals don't take responsibility for their own lives then they are going nowhere fast. This applies economically too. The first thing Moderns should learn is their value in the work-force, and the wages to compensate. If you are not being paid what you're worth, then quit. It's perfectly legal, and, the fruits of capitalism and western industriousness. Very wrong. Behaviour is entirely a result of an environment-genetic interaction. In a bad environment, no matter how good the genes, this is going to result in irresponsible behaviours. If nothing is done about this and it's just allowed to perpetuate, there is no better excuse. It's the responsibility of those who get on the lucky side of this crap-shoot to change these bad environments, but they don't because of loss aversion and being too worried about themselves losing their advantage that they didn't choose. And they are usually guilty of the same kind of common ignorance that you showed about behaviour in the above quote. The thing about free will in a deterministic universe is that you are "free" to choose, but you didn't choose to make that choice - that choice was determined by the environment-gene interaction that occurred without your will. As if poor people are choosing to stay poor Yes, some slaves and some downtrodden and unlucky starters manage to pull through, equally not out of any Kantian deontology or lofty privileged philosophy, but because of circumstances working in their favour despite the odds being against them - they aren't 100%, a tiny minority will pull through. The whole "take responsibility" thing is very popular at the moment, and it works on plenty of people which is great, but it won't and can't on many others - don't assume a necessarily universality of morality when science proves otherwise. And no, whilst quitting an exploitative role is perfectly legal, the alternatives - or at least the only ones you might know/be able to do - are often worse. So you don't quit. Clearly, very clearly, this is the case for a great many people or otherwise we wouldn't still see this sad situation everywhere all the time. Silhouette Philosopher Posts: 3232 Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am Location: Existence ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage @Wrong 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 my responsibility, I didn't inherit billions of dollars from my ancestors who exploited the environment, the economy and the vulnerable under a largely fraudulent, rigged system. Gloominary Thinker Posts: 820 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage @Wrong That's where your wrong. Workers don't necessarily owe anything to "democracy". It's only until democracy forms mob rule, and threatens the working man with jail, that 'taxes' are enforced by the State. Democracy is the criminal. You have things backward. That's your opinion. Property is make believe, each individual and/or collective gets to draw the lines wherever they see fit, if they draw them at all, and then we can discuss the implications and ramifications of drawing them here and/or there. This is how I see it: just because you pay government to protect a place for you, doesn't make it yours, if you rarely or never physically occupy or occupied it, than it's a kind of theft from those who're occupying it now. As-if it could be another way? As-if risk, competition, sacrifice is not involved to amass wealth? As-if most of the rich do not deserve the wealth they worked for? That's the beauty about the US, for now, still. If you work, risk, sacrifice, then you earn the wealth you make. It's socialists like you who want to cut into that and steal. I have no qualms against the top 1%. It's very much to the benefit of everybody. Why do you think oil and gas is affordable? Thank the top 1%. Thank the Bush family. That's not the point, the point is this is fundamentally a capitalist system, contrary to your assertion that it isn't. Competition is also physical. Capitalists have incorporated corporatism in order to further monopolize the economy. The rich have money but the poor have numbers, we'll just have to see which class wins out in the end. Winning isn't absolute tho, rather battles are won/lost, class warfare never ends. There's no utopia, only better/worse conditions for some/many. I'd rather them die on the street instead of my living room. I don't think the world's poor, poverty, discontents are my personal responsibility. I never said they were your responsibility, I said they were partly the responsibility of capitalists, and I gave reasons. I'm not a judaeo-christian, I don't believe all the Sins of the world are mine to inherit. I'm not a Judeo-Christian either, not only am I an atheist, but I don't believe we're all equally responsible for everything bad or wrong that happens to people, that was never my point. In fact I see that it's immoral for people to put and push their own suffering and negative choices onto others. You ought to agree, at least, that people are poor, criminal, and foul out of wrong choices throughout life. Hobos and bums don't magically appear on the street for nothing. They made choices to get there, bad choices, wrong choices, mostly, for those who don't want to be there. Some poor people are more responsible for their circumstances than others. You paint the poor with a broad brush, but perhaps I paint capitalists with a broad brush too, some capitalist are better/worse than others, but as a whole it's a bad, or at least a now largely obsolete system. You are implying that people who make good choices (have an apartment, job, house, assets, wife, children, etc) owe people who make bad choices and live without. That's what I'm against. Bullshit. People who make good choices deserve not to have to worry about taking in the world's poor into their living rooms as-if their welfare is owed to somebody else, on what principle? Are you Judaeo-Christian? Are everbody else's problems, bad choices, yours? Jesus Christ is your idol? I have$40,000 in school debts. You want to take that on for me? Go ahead, show me your charity.

This isn't about charity, it's about taking back what's arguably ours, mainly, but also about how we and the environment could probably do more good with it than they could.

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.

Wages have stagnated, relative, to the cost of living, as I've already demonstrated in prior posts, and which you haven't countered.

You haven't shown that wages stagnated, because they haven't. Minimum wage keeps going up in the US. Females and blacks make more than ever before, arguably, at the cost of white males, who have 'stagnated' economically.

The cost of living has gone up significantly more than wages have gone up.

I'm pro-privatization. Scandinavian countries are already socialist for the most part with extremely high taxes.

I'm not sure if they're mostly socialist, I'll have to do more research on them, from what I know all western countries are basically degrees of capitalist.

I'm pro-libertarian/classic liberalism, pro-individualism, pro-freedoms. Smaller or no government, defund public education, defund the police force.

I'm either an eco-socialist or an anarchist, what I am is in my signature.

However my ideals are not reality, nor would they work for everybody else. They reflect my personal opinion and values, nothing more. What's good for one isn't good for everybody necessarily.

There's no such thing as an absolute win/win, but in my opinion my ideals would make life better for many-most people living today in the west.

For example, consider the attacks against the Second Amendment in the US, and the state trying to impose gun laws, restrictions, and all sorts of barriers, attempting to take self-defense out of the hands of individual Americans, to replace that with "the state". It's the popular example. Socialism needs rebuked, not encouragement.

Not all socialists think alike.
Originally socialists were pro-direct democracy and militias, that is to say, if government should exist at all, every able bodied citizen should be a politician, legislator and enforcer, and so pro-gun. I'm pro-gun.
While I hope the state can make life better in some ways, I don't trust it as much as you think.

US is still strongly classical liberalist. The problem is new generations of entitled whiny beta chumps who want to 'vote' themselves more money instead of working and earning it.

The only chumps here are the ones who vote in their own servitude and slavery.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

It's not just the fittest who survive, in nature or society, it's also the luckiest.

Bill Gates made billions of dollars...but does that mean he's millions of times better than the average joe?
Of course not, he may be a few times smarter, harder working and so on, but not millions of times.

He just happened to make a product that was a little bit better than everyone else at the time, but if he didn't, if lightning had've struck him down instead, one of his competitors would've been a billionaire with their slightly worse product, or someone would've come along in several months and built a product just as good or better than Bill Gates.
So a lot of that was just being at the right place at the right time.

If all Bill Gates money was taken from him, and he had to start all over again, would all things align perfectly in his favor as they did in the past, so he could become a billionaire again?
I think that's about as likely as lightning striking the same place twice in a row.
So money then isn't really a measure of greatness.

Furthermore, it was the people below and around Bill Gates too, that made it all possible, not only was he standing on the shoulders of his employees and partners but on the shoulders of all Americans, of civilization itself, but because of how patents and property is defined, Bill Gates reaped much-most of the rewards.

So while Bill Gates is a great man for having done what he did, he is not a God, he is not actually worth millions of times more than the aveage Joe, that's just how much he has, and while he should've been richly rewarded for what he did, billions of dollars is absurd.

Capitalism doesn't strictly = merit, it's also a kind of roulette, where even halfwits could, and often do strike it rich, just for being at the right place at the right time, like a lot of reality TV stars, or cranks, quacks, infomercial guys, who manage to get lucky turning their gimmicks into gold.
So let's not pretend capitalism is just 'doing God's work', the invisible hand is not the 'hand of God', it's a cainso economy, societal roulette.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

It wasn't just Bill Gates intellect or work ethic that lead to that superior product, or even his colleagues, it might've been the food he was eating at the time, maybe it was a little healthier or gave him the right kind of energy, unbeknownst to him, maybe his personality quirks just happened to make him the right man for the right place/time, maybe it was his wife or girlfriend cheering him on, all these variables that were largely outside his conscious control that gave him the momentum he needed to accomplish what he did.
It's all these little things, why one man beats another one day, many of them inside the man, many of them outside.
It's kind of mysterious how people get rich/famous, there is no exact formula, obviously genes/memes, artistry, intellect, working hard and so on are part of it, but there's also environment. A lot of it can't be articulated or written down in a book, so much of it is out of our control.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

WendyDarling wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

Wrong, either you agree with the wiki link or you provide more accurate information. Once you agree, I'll show you exactly how much more YOU'RE WRONG.

You're wrong about the overall taxation rate of US versus european countries, twit.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Silhouette wrote:Important distinction here: monopolisation in a capitalist environment theoretically leads to higher prices than what they would be if competition undercut them and offered a similar enough product at a lower price, forcing a response etc.

That is no longer capitalism then, but is Corporatism. Capitalism drives prices of goods down, due to competing businesses, and drives wages up, again due to competing employers.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

Wrong, either you agree with the wiki link or you provide more accurate information. Once you agree, I'll show you exactly how much more YOU'RE WRONG.

You're wrong about the overall taxation rate of US versus european countries, twit.

This is gonna be fun. Pick a European Country you claim has a higher overall taxation rate. You won't cuz your nametag reads dishonest coward.
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: 6912
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Bill Gates was born into money. Its easier to venture out when you know you have the safety net of your family fortune to fall back on.

Pandora
Philosopher

Posts: 4094
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

It's somewhat entertaining to see all the excuses for one's own spiritual and moral weakness people use to blame others for their own failures, and scapegoating away personal responsibility and accountability for failing to get ahead in life. It's obvious very uncommon and rare for somebody to begin to take account of their own life, and, you are responsible for your own wage, your job, your career, your lifestyle, and the risks you make throughout life. Instead of looking up to those who become successful, of their own accord, they are instead shamed and successes are inverted into failures. "He was born into it" "He doesn't deserve it" "What about everybody's lack of opportunity" "Equality" No, these are all self-serving excuses, conjured up by weak souls and individuals who are, simply put, losers in life.

Winners don't accept failure, but will keep on trying, keep on moving forward, keep on risking, despite the losses. That's the American way, and the premise of western capitalism, the heroes who built the country from the ground up.

Sad to see such mentality in this forum, filled up by the opposite, quitter, loser mentality.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

No the losers are members of the middle and working classes who're working harder and harder for a standard of living that's getting lower and lower year by year, decade by decade, expecting the opposite to miraculously occur.
On the one hand, we have to make do with the system we got, but on the other, we can also opt for a better one at the voting booth and in other ways.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

http://www.thejournal.ie/bill-gates-har ... 8-Mar2016/

In what world does this even happen?!
In a world of money cushions, that's where. Let us at least be more realistic and not compare apples and oranges here.
Are you really going to sit there and listen to the likes of bill gates or zuckerberg giving you, a regular Joe Schmoe, a pep talk? If I can do it you can do it too! Please!
We live in the world where proper connections matter, and where money helps money:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/bill-ga ... bucks.html

Pandora
Philosopher

Posts: 4094
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

On the one hand, we have to make do with the system we got, but on the other, we can also opt for a better one at the voting booth and in other ways.

Mind sharing the other ways?
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: 6912
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

WendyDarling wrote:
On the one hand, we have to make do with the system we got, but on the other, we can also opt for a better one at the voting booth and in other ways.

Mind sharing the other ways?

Become an activist, or a writer, try to join a union, or form one, take advantage of social services when you need to, shoplift from Walmart...
I never agreed to the rules of this game, they're rigged in their favor.

Gloominary
Thinker

Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

When you live in a world where people turn to socialism, taxing, third-party interventions, all wanting to take cuts and pieces from the individuals (capitalists) who are successful then you know you've lost, and you're on the wrong side of history. It's easy to steal from others, by advocating for taxes and increasing taxes. It's much more difficult to actually make money, profit, work hard, and owning up to failures, mistakes, losses. The capitalists are still the heroes of today. They're not yet defeated, but hope does look dim, after reading this thread and the socialist advocates.

How many people are advocating for personal responsibility? Just me?? That's it.

If a worker is not getting his/her wage, then don't whine and bitch about it, demand a raise, or quit. The onus is upon you, not the employer. Or better yet, start your own business, see how well you do there. But these are words falling upon deaf ears. Nobody wants to do the 'right' thing. Everybody still wants to steal bites and crumbs of the pie. I understand that, because it's addictive. In the US socialists already voted themselves about 22% of the pie, and want more.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

I'm the anti-popular position here. If it were up to me, I would get rid of the government almost entirely, or entirely, reduce taxes down to 0-5%, and it only goes to military spending. No public education. No public roads. Private roads, tollbooths, privatize everything. More capitalism, more competition, not less. Strike out the minimum wage and child labor laws completey. If a 14 year old teenage boy wants to work then let him. That's real education, not socialist liberal-left propaganda of the public education system, teaching kids to steal steal steal more of the pie.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

You are all being a bit disingenuous and pedantic towards urwrong. The issue is not an exact dollar figure of $200, the fact is that accommodations can be had for cheaper than what most of you are assuming livable is, asian girl or not. What is livable anyways? Roof over your head and food in your mouth? What kind of roof? Or does it include transportation, entertainment, comfort, indulgence? A whole apartment for a person? Why is a room unreasonable? Do you mean the same "livable" benchmark as a minimum wage worker? Which is starting to get back to the original topic of this thread of raising minimum wage to$30 an hour. If $30 an hour is livable is this also what welfare and disability should pay out to? How would this not result in the halting of the industriousness of a nation? I am not saying that we shouldn't review what level of "livable" we intend to provide, but a$30/hr equivalent is ridicule worthy.

Sorry, but anyone who has actually had to work hard, struggle, sacrifice for and to keep their place in the world understands this stuff intuitively. In fact, socialists' lack of understanding of how healthy human societies function is the root of all their terrible ideas. The comment about keeping track of all the help someone didn't deserve as a child is a perfect example. Your parents (assuming they weren't dead beats) worked to earn enough "deserving" (aka "privilege" to leftists when trying to use the idea to their advantage) so that they could live a "livable" life according to the balance of their own abilities and desires. Privilege/deserving is EARNED, and as a child you are the direct result and only possible outcome of the choices your parents made and the actions they took. And it is the same for them and their parents, and so on and so forth. There is no randomness about it. It could only have happened that way because that is the way it happened. A parent spends their earned deserving on the child, and in a healthy culture/family there are no ledgers for this sort of thing. Likewise, the amount of deserving a parent or family patriarch/matriarch/bread-winner can spend or transfer to their child is of course limited by that which the parent has earned themselves to spend. This makes up part of what is a cultural inheritance as it occurs across a society's population.

If you want to derail that by talking about rich people not earning their keep and just exploiting everyone or taking advantage of X loophole, then we can also talk about disability and welfare fraud, and in the case of your $30/hr per person idea we can speak directly to the examples you have given. So, one parent works full-time or both parents work part time, but if both parents work full-time but only one$30/hr income is actually required, then the parents could use the additional income to become rich by any number of means. This would be no different than your idea of greedy employers, the money comes from the people. If $30/hr is livable for a 4 person family, then isn't$60/hr unreasonable to expect from the taxpayer for the same 4 person family, and if not then surely it won't be unreasonable when they use that money to invest and become financially independent and no longer have to work and become the very rich people you are whining you aren't one of? Like exactly how it is today? And if you think as you say that you would expect people who are currently making $30 an hour would get raises accordingly, then how do you expect you will maintain employment levels while simultaneously increasing costs to the employers? Could it possibly be that producers/suppliers have to raise their prices to compensate and then the precious$30/hr becomes the new $15/hr? Keeping in mind that if you fix taxation (even you yourself mentioned LOWERING taxes, fancy that, not very socialist of you. Just for the things you want, right?) there will be no need to impose a$30 min wage. The ironic thing is that leftist social experiments were responsible for the switch from comfortable one income families to required two or more income families today. Leftists are the people that blindly push for X change and then two generations down the road the same type of people start crying about the state of things. So they blindly push for another short-sighted change. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Those that cannot EARN their deserving exist only due to the compassion and earned deserving of others. This is also what is left of natural selection and darwinism. Socialists think they can usurp this earned deserving by taking it by force. They don't understand that "socialism" occurs as a natural mechanism within a healthy and homogeneous society, usually within a family unit. If we fixed the things that appear in the first paragraph of the OP we would solve many of the problems (and others that the leftists are causing, like disintegration of traditions, morals and family values which religion and culture are downstream of) we have because the society would be more capable of taking care of itself as it once largely did. You wouldn't need to mandate a $30 an hour minimum wage because the society would return to a state where one full or two partial incomes would provide enough deserving to support that system. Mandating a$30/hr minimum wage when the market is not ready for it not only forces an unnatural cultural state (which is why imposed socialism ALWAYS fails) it presumes the undeserved have a right to take from those that have earned deserving, and it presumes to elevate the virtue of compassion (of course in their own twisted and intolerant way) to the exclusion of all others . If you fix the actual problems and maintain a healthy society, those that earn deserving will support those that can't/don't to whatever level is healthy for that society. Sorry it's not all unicorns and rainbows, but it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to think that we can out think a nature determined by our evolution that has ruled us since our very beginning, which by the way, we barely understand. Especially since forced socialism has been tried many times and always ends tragically. But you're smarter than even that right? Socialists think they are more enlightened but they are still bound by human nature which includes stupidity, greed, dishonesty, vice, violence and hypocrisy. What's the excuse we always hear when giving examples of failed socialist states? "That wasn't real socialism, we know better than X, we will do it right".
Inconvenient Reality

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

You are all being a bit disingenuous and pedantic towards urwrong. The issue is not an exact dollar figure of $200, the fact is that accommodations can be had for cheaper than what most of you are assuming livable is, asian girl or not. The exact dollar figures were the issue when he made claims about exact dollar figures. The feat was to live on$600 like wrong claimed was possible which he never showed in any fashion of budget how that would work out. There is no range of money beyond $600 when that is one's budget, so wrong needed to provide what he specifically claimed regarding the$200 as well as the rest of his easy breezy use of that $600 to live high on the hog. 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: 6912 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Urwrongx1000 wrote:I'm the anti-popular position here. If it were up to me, I would get rid of the government almost entirely, or entirely, reduce taxes down to 0-5%, and it only goes to military spending. No public education. No public roads. Private roads, tollbooths, privatize everything. More capitalism, more competition, not less. Strike out the minimum wage and child labor laws completey. If a 14 year old teenage boy wants to work then let him. That's real education, not socialist liberal-left propaganda of the public education system, teaching kids to steal steal steal more of the pie. We used to have no minimum wage and child labour laws, no obligatory education, no welfare - we already know how it looks, just read a history book. You think you're a Libertarian of sorts no doubt, but you're unknowingly just advocating Feudalism, which it would turn into very quickly. Do Americans even get taught European history prior to their country's hostile takeover? The most actually free countries in the world are third world shitholes, the experiments have already been done and still continue today - learn about Pinochet's recent presidency as a good example - there's very good reason why we don't go for Tea Party nonsense in more developed parts of the world, where the best performing nations are actually more Social Democratic with welfare systems - fact. If things were still like how you want them to become again, unless you have noble ancestry and statistically I'm willing to guess you don't, you'd be working the fields or some modern equivalent as a serf and living in a shanty town, walking through streets glazed in human waste, dying early from easily treatable diseases like in the third world. Then you can work as hard as you like! After all, if you didn't, you'd not provide enough for your vassals (essentially the military) and have enough left over to feed yourself and your family, which will be larger due to lack of education and to make up for all the premature deaths. Those in power in the West say North Korea, which resembles this, is Communist - it's actually more Feudalist if people actually cared to learn the actual definitions of each term. We've moved on, keep up! There's a reason your position is anti-popular, particularly by the educated, who for some obviously conspiratorial reason tend to be left wing . It must be because they have no life experience (unlike the minority of right wingers also in education and the many left wingers who have experienced the world of work for many years, right?) and not because they actually know things! The educated left even read about attempts at achieving Socialism as a gateway to Communism and all the difficulties in orchestrating such a revolution (the same difficulties with all the same violence that has always occurred throughout history when significant socio-economic change was attempted e.g. the hostile acquisition of America to install its notion of Classical Liberalism). As such we know the difference between something run by the people, and some top-down dictatorship that called itself "Communism" - I already explained and you sympathised with how progressive things are appropriated by the opposition to mean their opposite. We know it wasn't actually Communism because we know what Communism actually is compared to that which it was named after, which failed horribly because it was actually Totalitarianism. I've already explained the rationale behind what you're still calling "taking cuts and pieces from the successful". Necessarily, for every winner there is a loser - that's fine. Let me repeat, let there be inequality and reward for the productive, but for God's sake let there be controls to curtail the degree to which winners can absolutely dominate the losers. The unplanned market demonstrably can't do it itself without its inbuilt, inevitable, periodic and catastrophic market crashes bringing the whole system back into the 3rd world, which they would without the unappreciated government safety nets that we enjoy (and suffer) today, just to re-level the playing field to an extent. In order to keep but also control inequality such that we can maintain some semblance of social mobility and utilisation of talent that would otherwise be lost to lack of opportunity, there needs to be redistribution - aka a wage expense to not only direct employees but also the rest of the economy for its indirect part in you acquiring all your riches as an employer - aka TAX. Personal responsibility is inbuilt in my propositions here (even with application to capitalists! Crazy) - it is still very much required, you are not alone in its advocation. My point about the biology of behaviour is not to be overlooked however, it's not as simple as just saying "take responsibility", it's pre-determined that many won't just because of biology. You can't avoid that, even if you were to arrange things such that they literally died out like in non-human species. Nature's crap-shoot for excellence inevitably results in losers as well as winners, except we have the ability to allow them to live out a life of minimal dignity, we only need to choose to do so (the left) or not (the right). Maybe I've not properly explained, but the pool of unemployment plays a necessary role in the economy. 1) There's those who will never be fit for useful economic participation, the disabled, the elderly, infants etc. - we need to pay for them to stay out if anything. 2) There's those who can be educated to be useful, we need to pay for that if they can't themselves (teacher salaries need to be high enough to justify how difficult they can be, burnout is particularly high for such an essential job), and 3) there's those who are able and willing to work but can't get anything yet - this maintains a level of competitive strain for people to keep their job and work hard at it to justify their employment over someone who is after their job. The second category cannot be overlooked in case there is talent that would otherwise be lost, and I'm not in favour of the third - I don't think fear is the optimal incentive to work, but this is the valuable role unemployment currently plays for our economy and it's in our own interests to pay for it. It even helps stem inflation: see the Phillips curve. But there's also the overstated category of 4) "able but not willing", which everybody likes to focus on. In reality, this group is going to exist: there will exist people willing to sacrifice their dignity, social status and their position on the ladder of sexual desirability (moreso with males) just to not have to work. On one hand you just have to accept that due to the importance of the first 3 categories, the 4th will exist as an unfortunate side effect and that's just tough, because it can only be managed to a very limited extent without oppressive measures that spill over and negatively affect other parties too. On the other hand I'm absolutely in favour of personal freedom, including the freedom to not work - cue the incoming hate towards my position here. Admit this though: not all valuable productivity has its place within paid work - there is a lot of creativity that could go on here but can't because the necessity to enter into paid work is so high. And yes, I support the right to live with minimal dignity despite being out of work and sacrificing social and sexual status like I said, I'm sorry. They are a minority and this is cheap to fund, just let them be. On the whole though, the unemployed are very very much worth their pay. Finally, robots! Technological creativity is replacing human necessity in the workplace, it's actually increasingly cheaper and better to not pay us to work, to even pay us to not work when a machine can. Back to my aversion to the third category, the further justification is here: if there wasn't the pressure to accept a bum deal to perform unskilled work that this category is all after just to get a foot in the door, it would be more economical for employers to invest in machinery to do the job instead of having to pay higher wages just to reignite the incentive for this category to still try. Again, pay the unemployed to not search for work if they don't have something skilled to offer, pay for machinery to do it instead. This is going to happen anyway - eventually to skilled work too. Technology is encroaching more and more, the pool of unemployed will only grow as a result, particularly once a certain threshold is hit. What will you rightists do then? Deny them welfare and let them suffer and starve just to prove a point about responsibility? Do you have an ounce of civility? Soon it will affect you types too, and what then? Will you then be in favour of welfare or suicide? Accept reality. Leftism is necessarily the future because of this, any perceived rise in its popularity is only the beginning of an adjustment to the coming reality, whether or not such a rise is actually happening at all. The future is happening though. I've stolen the following from someone young advocates of the right seem to worship at the moment: Jordan Peterson. He speaks of iterative trading games coming to adopt a pareto distribution where the median and modal wealth quickly approaches literally zero, and the end result is all the wealth ending up in the hands of 1 person - just like a game of monopoly. This has been simulated even where the outcomes of the trades are random, and the same result happens. Our current inequality would have happened even if it was all just luck - and due to determinism in my opinion all skill and ability actually is entirely luck: you don't choose your initial conditions, and every subsequent decision to change these conditions or otherwise is necessarily the result of your luck in these initial conditions. That's all it is. Rightists need to get off their high horse and respect the realities of nature, your philosophies are all just manifestations of the fundamental attribution error. If you've not yet read and appreciated my position @Inconvenient Reality, then do read and appreciate the above. These are far better arguments than I see being presented by other leftists here (and most other places I've come across too). They can be very wishy-washy, but the above should all be abundantly clear, logical and very real. Silhouette Philosopher Posts: 3232 Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am Location: Existence ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Democracy can only work when peoples incomes are somewhat equal. When the richest are worth as much as a small country, and the poorest don't have a pot to piss in, the rich can just buy the politicians and the courts, and that's exactly what they've done. Democracy doesn't work without equality. Of course we're not all equal and we shouldn't make the exact same amount of money, but the gap between rich and poor has never been higher in the history of the world as it is now. The gap between the richest and poorest class in say Ancient Athens pales in comparison to the chasm we have now. It seems the more wealth humanity has...the more concentrated it gets. The game is rigged. Gloominary Thinker Posts: 820 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage The minimum wage should be increased to 30 dollars, and after that adjusted for inflation annually. Either that or government should takeover some or all of the food and housing industries, so we can have cheap, affordable rents and food. If healthcare and education are universal, and they are in Canada, and most of the developed world, food and housing should be universal too, as they're far more essential. Gloominary Thinker Posts: 820 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Gloominary wrote:No the losers are members of the middle and working classes who're working harder and harder for a standard of living that's getting lower and lower year by year, decade by decade, expecting the opposite to miraculously occur. On the one hand, we have to make do with the system we got, but on the other, we can also opt for a better one at the voting booth and in other ways. The argument you're making just is not realistic. The living standard keeps going up in the Western world, mostly due to technological advancement. It's not getting lower. The shrinking of the middle class isn't necessarily a bad thing when put into the context of inflation. A century ago, making$50,000 per year meant you were rich. Today it means middle class. And it also depends on where you live, in a city or rural. As such, your broad claims don't mean much without specific examples and contexts.

Everybody is 'richer' today.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker

Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote: your broad claims don't mean much without specific examples and contexts.

Coming from the kettle, that sure is a rich suggestion.
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: 6912
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am