## 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

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

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. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1207 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Gloominary wrote:You make it like I alone am in the position to uplift. 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. Gloominary wrote:That's your opinion. My opinion is it's, our business, as a democracy, and I'm going to encourage people to vote socialist. 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. Gloominary wrote:So it's not that you're against regulation of the economy, it's that you're against excess regulation? I'm against the momentum of the modern world going liberal-left and towards more socialism, towards more third-party meddling and entitlement. Gloominary wrote: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. 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?

Gloominary wrote: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!

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.

Gloominary wrote:In practice this doesn't work, or wages would be increasing and prices stagnating.

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.

Gloominary wrote: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.

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). Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1207 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Gloominary wrote:@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. 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. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1207 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Silhouette wrote: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? 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? Silhouette wrote: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. 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. Silhouette wrote: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. 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. Silhouette wrote: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! 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. Silhouette wrote: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. 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. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1207 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Urwrongx1000 wrote: Gloominary wrote:Firstly, this sounds like a room for rent in a house, not an apartment. 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.

$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. 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: 7119 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage WendyDarling wrote:$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?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

What's even funnier is that you are actually serious when you ask me such.
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: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

There are 3 bedrooms in arkansas for $700, that's about$200 each room.

How many times would you like to be wrong??
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

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. 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: 7119 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Urwrongx1000 wrote:There are 3 bedrooms in arkansas for$700, that's about $200 each room. How many times would you like to be wrong?? 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. Gloominary Philosopher Posts: 1135 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage https://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!"
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:@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.

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.

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.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

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. 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: 7119 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Gloominary wrote: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. 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.

Gloominary wrote: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.

Gloominary wrote: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 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.

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.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

WendyDarling wrote: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. You're wrong. It's in the$200 range, as in 200-299. And it's close enough.

Neener neener neener.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Oh, now it's a range. I see. A range of dishonesty.
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: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

I have a computer, that's great, but so what?
We have a few more gadgets and gizmos now, but if in order to get that, it means I'll have to struggle more and more to survive, until we're back in the 19th century or China, then what difference does it make?
I'd rather not have my computer and not be a slave.
It's the essentials that matter, them being artificially scarce is what keeps the hamsters running on the wheel producing mostly junk that largely not only does not benefit the diminishing middle and lower classes, but doesn't really benefit anyone, even the rich.
We don't need to produce all this junk, give people the option, and many will choose not to produce as much as they are now.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Gloominary wrote:I have a computer, that's great, but so what?

So average humans are able to travel 100x faster, communicate 100x faster, work 100x faster than a century ago.

Gloominary wrote:We have a few more gadgets and gizmos now, but if in order to get that, it means I'll have to struggle more and more to survive, until we're back in the 19th century or China, then what difference does it make?

Society almost always goes forward, not backward. It's only going to get faster and more efficient the next 100 years, not less.

Gloominary wrote:I'd rather not have my computer and not be a slave.

There will always be slaves, now with computers, and a millennium ago without computers. Having a computer or not, doesn't really impact freedom versus slavery. If you want to be free then you should advocate personal freedoms and individuality, less taxation, and less third-party interventions.

Gloominary wrote:It's the essentials that matter, them being artificially scarce is what keeps the hamsters running on the wheel producing mostly junk that largely not only does not benefit the diminishing middle and lower classes, but doesn't really benefit anyone, even the rich.
We don't need to produce all this junk, give people the option, and many will choose not to produce as much as they are now.

Artificial scarcity is the product of monopolization, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Socialists, such as yourself, have very much curtailed and compensated for corporate monopolization, with the counter-balance of social third-party intervention (government, taxes, policies, regulations). The (human) world is doing just fine.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Urwrongx1000 wrote:do you want the government intervening into the personal and private lives of families? It's one thing for parents to dictate over children.

Socialism used to be about an economic intervention - namely to usurp all the capitalists and carry on doing the same work that workers were doing anyway, but with all the business assets being owned socially instead of privately bought through the use of money as capital, y'know, like when it was first being created and defined and the terms meant what they were made to mean.

But now it's used instead of the term "Authoritarianism", basically its exact opposite, where government has authority over your personal life, and instead of the means to work being owned socially/publicly, they're controlled by a state that's composed of elites, not "the people"/workers.

Likewise Liberalism used to mean being liberal with regard to social issues, with minimal to no government intervention.... but now it's used instead of the term "Authoritarianism", basically its exact opposite, where government has authority over your personal life.

Ask any actual leftist what they want, and they'll usually support what Socialism used to mean for the economy, and what Liberalism used to mean for your personal life.
I'm not in favour of government intervening in the personal and private lives of families - which is how the two terms have been appropriated to mean by not-Liberal-not-Socialists.
I am in favour of them making up for where the "Classical Liberal" ideal of "perfect competition" routinely fails. The "hand of the market" is supposed to keep the economy in check, but Capitalist "success" today basically revolves around avoiding perfect competition scenarios as much as possible. Poor people don't have the power to keep this in check, they have their iota of consumer influence, but only insofar as they can buy what they're given or go without - and you can't go without everything if you want to stay alive. So they elect a government to act on their collective wishes and keep the capitalists in check, but then the capitalists just buy their votes and those who are elected end up as corporate cronies who actually help make the whole situation worse. What ends up happening is more like a kind of Socialism for Capitalists! Any breaks the poor get are just to maintain their ability to carry on working and getting paid less than they earn their employer so they can profit off more people for longer - therefore getting even richer than they otherwise would.
I am against this kind of intervention.
I want intervention against this kind of intervention.

But back onto "taking advantage of the (economic) success of others": be as productive as you like, whatever your politics. You will anyway - regardless of the financial reward, because internal satisfaction is what drives the productive anyway.
And if they produce or help produce physically way more in the way of goods and services than they need (as so very many do with all the technology, infrastructure and working methods that we now use), then is it immoral for that to be shared with those who don't produce as much as they need or anything at all for whatever reason - given that the surplus of production is so vast that it's easily possible to do so? Whenever I've had more money than I need, I've been quite happy for it to go towards others - and many other people think so too.

As is always the case, your issue will be with consent. Share the fruits of your labour, sure, but not because the government is forcing you to, right?
Well the problem is that not all people "think so too" - they are unhappy for the massive surplus that they've helped create to be shared with others.

Let's not forget that the "art" of paying people less than they earn your company is NOT productivity - nor is the knack for finding the best ways to do this. It's a redistribution technique like taxation, but with no accountability. "It's the market, not me!" If it's the market that "dictates" the wages of your employees such that they are less than what they earn you, then you don't have to feel any responsibility (something of which you claimed to be in favour) for taking from people and giving to yourself: it's "your" company. But somehow, if the distribution is visible and accountable, suddenly then it's awful! It's only "your" company because you were rich and connected enough in the first place to buy the stuff you needed to start and fund its operations, and it's "others" who actually do the operations for you - it's more theirs than it is yours, just because you happened to start off richer than them.

The particularly rich get and stay rich because they are unhappy for wealth to be distributed with accountability, which is exactly why they their charity is never enough, and it's certainly insufficient to undo the distribution-without-accountability that is making and keep them rich. Bill Gates can give so much because he's admitted he makes money faster than he can spend it - he genuinely doesn't need it, but you don't see him trying to undo the mechanism that channels so much money to him. And since none of them do, then we need a body that will: a government. Sorry, if the rich aren't going to be socially (and environmentally) responsible, then they don't "deserve" to be fully in charge. It's the rich who are the entitled ones, choosing to pay themselves more than their employees (profit). They're all engaged in these petty battles with their counterparts - trying to outdo each other materially in a pissing contest, when there are plenty of others who could be said to "deserve" it more. Honestly, I think beyond a certain monetary wealth, it should be become a points system - it'd serve the same purpose, but not at the expense of society and even the economy.

And who really makes this money anyway? Employers wouldn't be rich if they didn't have employees to profit from - they owe their ENTIRE income to them, because that is what their entire income is literally from. And the employer and employees wouldn't be able to constitute a productive business if it weren't for all their customers. And all this money has to circulate through all kinds of other businesses and other people too to get back to the money "made" by any particular employer - they owe the ENTIRE economy. Money isn't made, it is attracted from an existing flow that travels through all people. Indirect causes are still causes.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I've worked my ass off in life.

I have no doubt. So many people of all incomes work their ass off. It's almost as though there's no correlation between how hard you work and how much money you get - in so many cases. People who work this hard have to convince themselves that their work was worth it, so of course they think they deserved every penny they made. Maybe you'd have made less if there was no education spending... I don't know what education you had. Education is just another area that can't be left to the risks of complete privatisation. It's all very well taking a moral high ground and saying it's the parents' responsibilities to fund the education of their child and children, but since there are inevitably going to be economic losers if there are going to be economic winners, with all of the losers being unable to afford the education, just imagine the sheer degree of incompetence going around... Obviously with no hope, crime becomes tempting - maybe you're saying you'd be happier to live in a country of even more unemployed criminal morons, but I can't say I feel the same way.

You have to look beyond just your own needs and your own situation, you have to consider that tough love isn't an optimal solution for everyone in all situations: for all the people in situations where it does help there are many where it does quite the opposite. In an economy and a society, what goes around quite literally comes around - you have to see ALL the system and know all the potential consequences just to give your own needs and situation any real meaningful context whatsoever. Otherwise you're just imagining "what would it be like if social responsibility didn't have to apply to me and others?" which is just fantasy.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 3428
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

@Wrong

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.

I live check to check.
Some wealthy liberals do donate to charity.

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 could just as easily say the democracy owns everything, and whatever you have is a privilege.

Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to what they need, but if you're a multimillionaire-billionaire capitalist, it's a privilege.

I'm against the momentum of the modern world going liberal-left and towards more socialism, towards more third-party meddling and entitlement.

That's absurd.
Again, how can you say that when the richest 1% controls 80% of the wealth?
How can you say that when the overwhelming majority of the 1st world economy is in private hands?
How can you say that when welfare is substantially below the poverty line?
When the middle class is starting to live like the working class, and the working class is starting to live like the unemployed, in spite of, or even because of tremendous economic growth?
How can you say that when we have shopping malls opening up everywhere?
Never in the history of the world has there been more development as now.
And now China, India and much of the third world are attempting to ape western materialism.
No it's the very opposite, this is still the 'golden' age of capitalism playing itself out, just because it's not precisely as pure as it was in the 19th century, doesn't mean it's not fundamentally, it, is.

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? Here you make it sound as tho socialism is to blame for the disparities. It's not. Conditions for many-most of the workers were akin to slavery in the 19th century before the socialist reforms of the early 20th century. You used to be able to get welfare a lot easier, and it used to pay a lot more, in Canada and many parts of the states, but since the 1980s, the Reagan and Thatcher era, we've seen a resurgence of classical liberalism (neoliberalism) in the Anglosphere. The social safety net has gotten smaller and smaller, to the point now where it's almost a joke, yet wages have stagnated, relative, to the ascending cost of living. If it weren't for a safety net, the working class would have all the more trouble becoming middle class, and members of the middle class would have a tougher time bouncing back from hard times. Unfortunately the rich have skirted around some of the taxes while small businesses haven't, because democrats in the states, or liberals in Canada, have both long since been bought and paid for by the corporations, and so have republicans and conservatives. If we want more/real socialism we have to start voting for alternative parties, and becoming activists...which'll probably never happen...but all this isn't the fault of socialism, it's mostly the fault of capitalism (and the hoodwinked masses) that created these enormous disparities in the first place, making them partly immune from the necessary socialist interventions that had to be implemented later on down the road to correct them. You're the one claiming "everybody deserves" (a place to live). So? Is that really so horrible? Would you prefer some people die on the street? 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? I'm a minimalist, I care as much about the environment as I do the lower classes. I never cared for material things, never had any interest in them. I always sought to maximize my free time and knowledge rather than the amount of stuff I had. It's not a slippery slope for me. I said people who can't work deserve a one bedroom apartment, some decent food to eat, enough bus faire to get around the city, you have not and will not ever hear me say we should all live like kings. I believe needs and the environment ought to come first, not greed, that everyone who can't work or is working should have their needs met, and that capitalists don't need to have a 10th of what they have, and I have some well thought out ideas about what constitutes needs. 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. 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).

Here, you're changing your tune, you're starting to sound like a relativist.
So socialism or other economic systems might work for other countries, just not America?
Are you sure?
Things are always changing, the America of the 19th century, when capitalism really started coming into its own, isn't the America of the 21st.
Perhaps more socialism is exactly what America needs.

Just the state and infrastructure?
How come?
Why not privatize those things too?
Are you so certain these two areas are the only ones that shouldn't be privatized?
Where do you draw the line and why, you haven't given us an account.
Do you unthinkingly draw it there just because it goes against conventional dogmas you've been brought up with?
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

@Wrong

So average humans are able to travel 100x faster, communicate 100x faster, work 100x faster than a century ago.

I like computers, but they have drawbacks, but I really don't want to get into all that here/now.
As for cars, yes they're nice, but there's trade-offs, they cause accidents, noise, pollution, traffic.
They cost trillions of dollars in resources to manufacture and drive, a heavy toil on our environment, plus climate change, a heavier toll, which scientists are saying, if left unchecked, will likely be the death of civilization, if not life itself as we know it.
Cars make us fat, lazy.
They've become a prison, because we're forced to commute longer hours to work.
We never get to enjoy our products because of artificial scarcity, food and housing being way overpriced, workers underpaid.

Society almost always goes forward, not backward. It's only going to get faster and more efficient the next 100 years, not less.

This is plainly not true for anyone with the roughest knowledge of history.
We can argue a lot over whether humanity is ultimately progressing or heading towards destruction.
We almost annihilated each other during the cold war.
WW3 over power and dwindling resources may be around the corner, it's a real possibility.
Add to that climate change, the annihilation of a nature that has value of itself, intrinsically, and a nature that we're still fundamentally dependent on, extrinsically.
A coronal mass ejection could wipe out all electronics overnight, sending us back into the dark age.

But even if we are fundamentally progressing, which I doubt, we at least certainly took many, many steps back temporarily on our way to utopia.
The Minoans and Mycenaeans rose and fell, the Greeks and the Romans rose and fell.
Grand and glorious civilizations are often followed by equally grim dark ages.
Not just in the west, but the Mayans withered away, scientists still aren't sure exactly why, Egypt, Sumer, Persia, China, they all collapsed or nearly so at some point, and some of them are no longer with us today, Egyptians no longer speak the language of their ancestors, the ones who built the pyramids, or resemble them in any way culturally.

There will always be slaves, now with computers, and a millennium ago without computers. Having a computer or not, doesn't really impact freedom versus slavery. If you want to be free then you should advocate personal freedoms and individuality, less taxation, and less third-party interventions.

There will always be slaves, but sometimes we can help partly or fully emancipate our class.

If the people are fundamentally in control of their democracy, than whatever laws they make, will ultimately, in all likelihood serve them, that's not slavery.
The condition of having to sell ones labor can for many people at many times/places be akin to slavery, especially if left unchecked by state, social or syndicate interventions.

Artificial scarcity is the product of monopolization, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Socialists, such as yourself, have very much curtailed and compensated for corporate monopolization, with the counter-balance of social third-party intervention (government, taxes, policies, regulations). The (human) world is doing just fine.

Artificial scarcity should end, if 30 dollars an hour doesn't cut it, if we can't properly manage the consequences of that (we might be able to), than one alternative is, and I've already brought up a couple before, to have universal food and housing, similar to how Canada has universal education (but not postsecondary) and healthcare.
Food and housing are more important than education.
People will still have to work, but not nearly as much, food and rents will be much cheaper.
What people do with their free time will be up to them, if they want to continue working and inventing they can, but they won't have to and many-most won't as much as they are now.
We'll produce a lot less stuff, much of it garbage anyway, but be able to use the stuff we do have to its fullest, enjoy it, instead of just using it to work us even harder and more efficiently, which's how it's largely being used now.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1135
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

This is nearly 50 percent more than what you were talking about. It also says, "asian women welcome" or something like that.
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: 25502
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Silhouette wrote:Socialism used to be about an economic intervention - namely to usurp all the capitalists and carry on doing the same work that workers were doing anyway, but with all the business assets being owned socially instead of privately bought through the use of money as capital, y'know, like when it was first being created and defined and the terms meant what they were made to mean.

But now it's used instead of the term "Authoritarianism", basically its exact opposite, where government has authority over your personal life, and instead of the means to work being owned socially/publicly, they're controlled by a state that's composed of elites, not "the people"/workers.

Likewise Liberalism used to mean being liberal with regard to social issues, with minimal to no government intervention.... but now it's used instead of the term "Authoritarianism", basically its exact opposite, where government has authority over your personal life.

Ask any actual leftist what they want, and they'll usually support what Socialism used to mean for the economy, and what Liberalism used to mean for your personal life.
I'm not in favour of government intervening in the personal and private lives of families - which is how the two terms have been appropriated to mean by not-Liberal-not-Socialists.

I agree, a lot of 'Modern' terms have been inverted, perverted, and twisted around, for political purposes and also lack of education and common sense. Public ignorance and apathy, general laziness, wears away civil liberties.

Silhouette wrote:I am in favour of them making up for where the "Classical Liberal" ideal of "perfect competition" routinely fails. The "hand of the market" is supposed to keep the economy in check, but Capitalist "success" today basically revolves around avoiding perfect competition scenarios as much as possible. Poor people don't have the power to keep this in check, they have their iota of consumer influence, but only insofar as they can buy what they're given or go without - and you can't go without everything if you want to stay alive. So they elect a government to act on their collective wishes and keep the capitalists in check, but then the capitalists just buy their votes and those who are elected end up as corporate cronies who actually help make the whole situation worse. What ends up happening is more like a kind of Socialism for Capitalists! Any breaks the poor get are just to maintain their ability to carry on working and getting paid less than they earn their employer so they can profit off more people for longer - therefore getting even richer than they otherwise would.
I am against this kind of intervention.
I want intervention against this kind of intervention.

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.

Silhouette wrote:But back onto "taking advantage of the (economic) success of others": be as productive as you like, whatever your politics. You will anyway - regardless of the financial reward, because internal satisfaction is what drives the productive anyway.
And if they produce or help produce physically way more in the way of goods and services than they need (as so very many do with all the technology, infrastructure and working methods that we now use), then is it immoral for that to be shared with those who don't produce as much as they need or anything at all for whatever reason - given that the surplus of production is so vast that it's easily possible to do so? Whenever I've had more money than I need, I've been quite happy for it to go towards others - and many other people think so too.

As is always the case, your issue will be with consent. Share the fruits of your labour, sure, but not because the government is forcing you to, right?
Well the problem is that not all people "think so too" - they are unhappy for the massive surplus that they've helped create to be shared with others.

In the US, taxes are between 10%-30% from state to state and including federal taxation. I'd say the average person gets 22% taxed in the US, which is very low for a developed country, and even lower for a military power house. Perhaps taxes could go up. Perhaps they should stay the same. I don't see them going down. Therefore your point, and Gloom's point, are both moot. "The government", society, third-parties, already receive a large chunk of people's income, productivity, and welfare.

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? That's the socialist agenda, wanting more.

Silhouette wrote:Let's not forget that the "art" of paying people less than they earn your company is NOT productivity - nor is the knack for finding the best ways to do this. It's a redistribution technique like taxation, but with no accountability. "It's the market, not me!" If it's the market that "dictates" the wages of your employees such that they are less than what they earn you, then you don't have to feel any responsibility (something of which you claimed to be in favour) for taking from people and giving to yourself: it's "your" company. But somehow, if the distribution is visible and accountable, suddenly then it's awful! It's only "your" company because you were rich and connected enough in the first place to buy the stuff you needed to start and fund its operations, and it's "others" who actually do the operations for you - it's more theirs than it is yours, just because you happened to start off richer than them.

I disagree entirely.

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.

Silhouette wrote:The particularly rich get and stay rich because they are unhappy for wealth to be distributed with accountability, which is exactly why they their charity is never enough, and it's certainly insufficient to undo the distribution-without-accountability that is making and keep them rich. Bill Gates can give so much because he's admitted he makes money faster than he can spend it - he genuinely doesn't need it, but you don't see him trying to undo the mechanism that channels so much money to him. And since none of them do, then we need a body that will: a government. Sorry, if the rich aren't going to be socially (and environmentally) responsible, then they don't "deserve" to be fully in charge. It's the rich who are the entitled ones, choosing to pay themselves more than their employees (profit). They're all engaged in these petty battles with their counterparts - trying to outdo each other materially in a pissing contest, when there are plenty of others who could be said to "deserve" it more. Honestly, I think beyond a certain monetary wealth, it should be become a points system - it'd serve the same purpose, but not at the expense of society and even the economy.

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.

Silhouette wrote:And who really makes this money anyway? Employers wouldn't be rich if they didn't have employees to profit from - they owe their ENTIRE income to them, because that is what their entire income is literally from. And the employer and employees wouldn't be able to constitute a productive business if it weren't for all their customers. And all this money has to circulate through all kinds of other businesses and other people too to get back to the money "made" by any particular employer - they owe the ENTIRE economy. Money isn't made, it is attracted from an existing flow that travels through all people. Indirect causes are still causes.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I've worked my ass off in life.

I have no doubt. So many people of all incomes work their ass off. It's almost as though there's no correlation between how hard you work and how much money you get - in so many cases. People who work this hard have to convince themselves that their work was worth it, so of course they think they deserved every penny they made. Maybe you'd have made less if there was no education spending... I don't know what education you had. Education is just another area that can't be left to the risks of complete privatisation. It's all very well taking a moral high ground and saying it's the parents' responsibilities to fund the education of their child and children, but since there are inevitably going to be economic losers if there are going to be economic winners, with all of the losers being unable to afford the education, just imagine the sheer degree of incompetence going around... Obviously with no hope, crime becomes tempting - maybe you're saying you'd be happier to live in a country of even more unemployed criminal morons, but I can't say I feel the same way.

You have to look beyond just your own needs and your own situation, you have to consider that tough love isn't an optimal solution for everyone in all situations: for all the people in situations where it does help there are many where it does quite the opposite. In an economy and a society, what goes around quite literally comes around - you have to see ALL the system and know all the potential consequences just to give your own needs and situation any real meaningful context whatsoever. Otherwise you're just imagining "what would it be like if social responsibility didn't have to apply to me and others?" which is just fantasy.

Isn't that the point I made to Gloom, that he needs to address macro-economics and not just his own inner-city dense population?

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.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage

Gloominary wrote:Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to what they need, but if you're a multimillionaire-billionaire capitalist, it's a privilege.

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.

Gloominary wrote:That's absurd.
Again, how can you say that when the richest 1% controls 80% of the wealth?
How can you say that when the overwhelming majority of the 1st world economy is in private hands?
How can you say that when welfare is substantially below the poverty line?
When the middle class is starting to live like the working class, and the working class is starting to live like the unemployed, in spite of, or even because of tremendous economic growth?
How can you say that when we have shopping malls opening up everywhere?
Never in the history of the world has there been more development as now.
And now China, India and much of the third world are attempting to ape western materialism.
No it's the very opposite, this is still the 'golden' age of capitalism playing itself out, just because it's not precisely as pure as it was in the 19th century, doesn't mean it's not fundamentally, it, is.

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.

Gloominary wrote:Here you make it sound as tho socialism is to blame for the disparities.
It's not.

Yes it is, there is already an excess of socialism in place. Socialism is responsible for the current ~$10 per hour minimum wage. That's social enforcement and regulation of the economy by mob-rule. Gloominary wrote:Conditions for many-most of the workers were akin to slavery in the 19th century before the socialist reforms of the early 20th century. No, just no, not in the US. Gloominary wrote:You used to be able to get welfare a lot easier, and it used to pay a lot more, in Canada and many parts of the states, but since the 1980s, the Reagan and Thatcher era, we've seen a resurgence of classical liberalism (neoliberalism) in the Anglosphere. The social safety net has gotten smaller and smaller, to the point now where it's almost a joke, yet wages have stagnated, relative, to the ascending cost of living. If it weren't for a safety net, the working class would have all the more trouble becoming middle class, and members of the middle class would have a tougher time bouncing back from hard times. Unfortunately the rich have skirted around some of the taxes while small businesses haven't, because democrats in the states, or liberals in Canada, have both long since been bought and paid for by the corporations, and so have republicans and conservatives. If we want more/real socialism we have to start voting for alternative parties, and becoming activists...which'll probably never happen...but all this isn't the fault of socialism, it's mostly the fault of capitalism (and the hoodwinked masses) that created these enormous disparities in the first place, making them partly immune from the necessary socialist interventions that had to be implemented later on down the road to correct them. You're the one claiming "everybody deserves" (a place to live). So? Is that really so horrible? Would you prefer some people die on the street? 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'm not a judaeo-christian, I don't believe all the Sins of the world are mine to inherit. 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. 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.

Gloominary wrote:I'm a minimalist, I care as much about the environment as I do the lower classes.
I never cared for material things, never had any interest in them.
I always sought to maximize my free time and knowledge rather than the amount of stuff I had.
It's not a slippery slope for me.
I said people who can't work deserve a one bedroom apartment, some decent food to eat, enough bus faire to get around the city, you have not and will not ever hear me say we should all live like kings.
I believe needs and the environment ought to come first, not greed, that everyone who can't work or is working should have their needs met, and that capitalists don't need to have a 10th of what they have, and I have some well thought out ideas about what constitutes needs.

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.

Gloominary wrote:
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). Here, you're changing your tune, you're starting to sound like a relativist. So socialism or other economic systems might work for other countries, just not America? Are you sure? What about in 50 years time...what about in 100? Things are always changing, the America of the 19th century, when capitalism really started coming into its own, isn't the America of the 21st. Perhaps more socialism is exactly what America needs. Just the state and infrastructure? How come? Why not privatize those things too? Are you so certain these two areas are the only ones that shouldn't be privatized? Where do you draw the line and why, you haven't given us an account. Do you unthinkingly draw it there just because it goes against conventional dogmas you've been brought up with? I'm pro-privatization. Scandinavian countries are already socialist for the most part with extremely high taxes. I'm pro-libertarian/classic liberalism, pro-individualism, pro-freedoms. Smaller or no government, defund public education, defund the police force. 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. Whether or not US "needs" more socialism is irrelevant to the fact that socialism has already been growing, hence the higher tax rates and repeals of previously enjoyed individual liberties. 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. 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. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 1207 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: 30 Dollar Minimum Wage Yes it is, there is already an excess of socialism in place. Socialism is responsible for the current ~$10 per hour minimum wage. That's social enforcement and regulation of the economy by mob-rule.

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.
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: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am