30 Dollar Minimum Wage

I’d be interested in seeing those links too. I live in the rural US and you cannot even rent a sleeping room for $200.

@Wrong

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

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

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/468-to-1-401-what-canadians-pay-to-rent-one-bedroom-apartments-1.3207227

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

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

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

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

It occurs because machines have replaced workers for the production and provision of necessary goods and services, such as food production, capitalists lay off excess workers, and rehire them to produce and provide increasingly unnecessary goods and services, gradually destroying the environment in the process.
This shouldn’t’ve occurred nearly as much as it did, if at all.
Now measures must be taken to correct this totally unsustainable, self-destructive system, anarchism, communism, socialism and syndicalism are some alternatives.

That’s your opinion.
My opinion is it’s, our business, as a democracy, and I’m going to encourage people to vote socialist.

So it’s not that you’re against regulation of the economy, it’s that you’re against excess regulation?

Firstly, I’m not a socialist nor a capitalist, I’m advocating for moderation here, as I see it, not extremes, however I’d certainly rather see an extreme left economy than an extreme right.

Secondly, socialists have hardly won anything, there’s too much corporatism, cartels, corporate welfare, tax breaks/loopholes.
Most of the economy is ran by/for big business, not by the state or the workers themselves directly.
And from my research, there was more socialism before the 1980s than there is now, which’s why things were better for working people and the unemployed then.

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!

In practice this doesn’t work, or wages would be increasing and prices stagnating.

I am a common person with a common income, maybe you’re not.

Many people aren’t fine with it tho, and I’m telling them they don’t have to settle for it, they can vote socialist.

That’s rich, the capitalist is telling me happiness doesn’t revolve around money.
Tell that to big business who’ve fired millions of workers and shipped jobs overseas to China and Mexico, where they pay men, women and children pennies, working 12-16 hour days to manufacture shoes and things.
Where there’s locks on the doors so they can’t leave, suicide nets and union busters, because workers over there don’t have state protections against such practices like we do over here.

Money itself can’t buy happiness, but being above the poverty line helps.

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

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

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

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.

@Wrong

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.

wichita.craigslist.org/roo/d/27 … 13814.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#-o :laughing: Hahaha…Asian females welcome! Yah, that’s legit by a MGTOW! I can’t stop laughing! :laughing:

Damn women are so unreasonable! :laughing:

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

bursting into explosive howling

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

Urwrong. Let me tell you why Urwrong.

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

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

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

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

Seriously now though, why not instead aim for an economy that yields optimal output for minimal input? The definition of efficiency. I strongly suspect that we could achieve all the results we achieve today and more, much more efficiently than we currently do if we just eradicated all the injustice at the ideological heart of Western economic models.

Oh, it’s probably innocent. :sunglasses: :smiley:

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

Aren’t we all looking for a little ‘cultural enrichment’ these days? :eusa-shifty:

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t matter, there are rooms for rent in the US at $200 per rent.

You, Wendy, and Reasonable are all wrong.

Obviously if you pay more, you get more.

You are. Liberal-leftist-socialists should be spending 50% of their own time and money on the poor, before asking anybody else to spend more. If you don’t then you’re just a hypocrite.

It’s not “an opinion”. For you to stick your hand into other people’s dealings, and then complain about fairness, is hypocrisy. Taxation is theft. You’re merely trying to justify your thievery, taking the profits and successes of others. Taking bites of a pie you had no part in making.

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

Corporations have taken advantage of socialistic idealists, such as yourself, and raked in the profits of your mistakes.

Corporations have ways around laws such as $30 minimum, by cutting worker hours, less hiring, laying off workers, etc.

The larger corporations are relatively immune to socialistic-leftist meddling. They can afford to get around all social-government interventions. Small businesses, small corporations, small industries, will all be destroyed. Thus the world will be worse off by socialistic-leftist meddling. Socialists and leftists are not actually targeting or penalizing the ones they hope to, with inept understanding of economics. Liberal-leftists try to penalize the “top 1%” but end up hurting the middle class more. This is another reason why “economic equality” cannot be enforced, especially not through democracy and legislation. Corporations will pay politicians off anyway, who do you think sponsors election campaigns?

You’re the one claiming “everybody deserves” (a place to live).

Then you’re complaining that it’s not big enough. It’s a slippery-slope. Apparently you have no limit. You want everybody sitting on gold toilets with gold toilet paper?

You obviously don’t know China very well. They’re overpopulated. In Tokyo, it’s normal to be packed in like sardines. I don’t think you really care that much. Moot point.

It does work, which is mostly why minimum wage has climbed so high in the first place. Workers demand more pay with or without third-party intervention. Employers must compete against other employers.

Different societies and groups of humans want and decide upon different things.

US attitudes are for pro-capitalism, pro class mobility, and less socialistic interventions. What works in one place, does not work in another ($30 minimum wage).

Corporations are neither necessarily bad or necessarily good. As you said, they are an end-result. Is it bad that computers were monopolized at one point, with IBM, Microsoft, and Intel running the industry? No, they made computers cheap for everybody, for personal use, and led to the world as it is today. Apple competed out of survival. Eventually laws were passed to curtail and cut-up Microsoft. There were pros and cons to the Microsoft monopoly.

But the average wage of Microsoft employees rose, they did not fall. So your conjectures are simply wrong. Microsoft employees and other software/hardware engineers, have rose very high over the past 50 years. So your economic conjectures just do not paint the reality on the ground.

There are third-party intervention in all things. Parenting, as you mention, is a form of social intervention. But, according to my point, do you want the government intervening into the personal and private lives of families? It’s one thing for parents to dictate over children. It’s another for foreigners, moral crusaders, politicians, and the rest of society.

Here’s the deal, when somebody is successful, when two parents successfully raise a family, then others (Socialists) will want to intervene and take credit, or take advantage, of those successes. That’s what I’m against. I’m more for appropriating causes and responsibility, where they belong. By mob-rule, democrats, leftists, liberals, socialists, have all gained too much power, and have the gumption and gall to think they can go around claiming anybody and anything, even “the upbringing” of private families.

Sex. Economy. Do socialists-liberal-leftists have any limits of what they can’t or won’t stick their nose in?

There is already third-party intervention. I already admitted that. There is already taxation…25% or more, of your income, taken out of your pocket, in the “interests of general society”. Somebody is already profiting off your work and life.

Dead people can’t profit off their own labor, but I do agree with royalties and that families of inventor’s, or according to their wills and words, should get some royalties. Bill Gates, for example, if he wants to give away most of his fortune and success to whomever he wants, then that’s his business. Socialists would be the one try to tax it, by taxing death, inheritance, anything they can get their hands on.

Bullshit, I’ve worked my ass off in life. I deserve every cent I made, and possibly, the amounts taken by taxation. I’m not against all taxation. In the US it’s relatively fair. I agree with public roads and the military. That’s about it though. I’m against education spending. There should be more privatization and responsibility of parents to educate their own children.

There’s already too much socialistic interventions. And it’s pushing further left and socialistic. I’m against that.

Like you say, there is surplus. But that “surplus” comes from the third-party intervention. People don’t pay taxes out of charity. They pay because they have to, are forced to, by mob-rule. If a few people don’t pay taxes then the rest of society hunts them down, because they don’t want a few people cheating the system while the rest have to pay.

$275 is not $200. Try again, try to find an even hornier guy’s ad. Heck, place one yourself for $1.99 and prove us all way wrong. :laughing:

It hurts being wrong doesn’t it?

What’s even funnier is that you are actually serious when you ask me such. :laughing:

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

How many times would you like to be wrong??

How is a person with an allotted $200 for rent supposed to rent that $700 house? Where are they going to come up with the security deposit? Not to mention the other $500? Even if it was simple and safe to rent a room from some stranger soliciting on craiglist, it would have to be the $200 that you spoke of (not $275…you’re a stubborn boy), there’d have to be a keyed entry to your private quarters, and no security deposit. Then there’d be negotiations on utilities for you’d have very little $ to work with. I realize that you enjoy being the thorn in my side and others, but it’s not doable with $600 in a city or a rural area, even if you made use of social program freebies or reduced rate services.