Democrats starting to get the message? (1 Viewer)

[Jayrod]

No, she was fine on transparency, especially as compared to Trump.  Think taxes, for example, or responding to accusations of misstatements instead of ignoring the criticisms. People are just idiots and she wasn't an effective campaigner. 

Looks like we have an answer to the thread title right here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tobias...love ya dude, but this is the ONLY way she was "fine" on transparency...The ONLY way.  By any other useful measure she falls flat on her face.

I think you're just defining the word more broadly to include "forthrightness" or whatever.  But I'm tired of fighting dumb Hillary fights that distract from the awfulness of the actual president, so if that's what you want to go with, sure.  

 

[Sand]

I don't know what Media Matters is and I'm fine with the notion that it is less than that but the US Census puts the number of Americans below the poverty line at 43.1 million. 

For an individual that is roughly $12,000 per year in earnings or less. $1,000 per month or less seems like a pretty desperate situation to me, YMMV.

But not easy enough to disprove in your post?

I'm going to go ahead and given some data here, as I'm feeling benevolent today.

Have a look here at what the poor in the US own (and note this is an old table, the stats have gotten better on the whole).  "Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo."  That's not desperate poverty.  To make that statement is simply parroting a political meme.

No doubt there is a (very) small section of the population that is really struggling with poverty, but it's nowhere near the numbers you blithely claim.   The poverty line as defined here in the US is a political construct, not a measure of "desperate poverty".  

That table was based on Census Bureau data that were released in “Living Conditions in the United States, 2005".  Any issues with the accuracy thereof please take it up with the Feds.

 

[humpback]

If I pay a vendor less than what they need to succeed as a business, then I don't have a viable business model. My profit is only temporary until the vendor goes out of business and I then need to pay a different vendor a price they know is needed to keep them in business.

If I pay an employee less than what they need to live as a person, then I don't have a viable business model either. However my profit is not temporary, because the government subsidizes my exploitation of that employee.

Right now we have a ton of businesses that are not viable business models. When government raises minimum wage back to a livable wage like it was intended to be, we will see non-viable business models fail. 

I have been saying for years that many of the economic numbers people use to convince themselves the economy is okay, or even good or great, are misleading. The best indicator of how the economy is doing is median household income. Yet, even that is incomplete. For example, a household making $50,000 a year with one person working 40 hours a week is not the same as a household making $50,000 a year with two people working 100 hours a week. Decades ago a dad could have one job and support a family of five where mom stays at home to take care of the kids. Today that dad has to get a second job, and mom has to work two jobs as well for that house to keep it's value in the economic numbers. And those jobs they do today have higher productivity requirements than in the past. Households are spending a lot more of their time working, in harder work for little to no increase in total compensation. Our economic situation is HORRIBLE compared to what it was a few decades ago, but the economic numbers don't reflect that. And a HUGE reason for that is because the people who are not good at capitalism are getting owned by people who are good at capitalism. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. The winners are winning, and the losers are losing. 

The non-viable businesses that are only staying alive because their exploitation is being subsidized need to fail. Until they fail and can be replaced by viable businesses, our country will never heal from this problem. 

In your opinion, where are these viable businesses going to come from?

 

[SWC]

who even cares if anyone gets a massage if you have a hurtin back go for it thats what i say jeez people will find any reason to get worked up these days just live and let live thats what i say take that to the bank bromigos 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Poor people have VCRs, no need to worry anymore.

 

[The Commish]

Tobias...love ya dude, but this is the ONLY way she was "fine" on transparency...The ONLY way.  By any other useful measure she falls flat on her face.

I think you're just defining the word more broadly to include "forthrightness" or whatever.  But I'm tired of fighting dumb Hillary fights that distract from the awfulness of the actual president, so if that's what you want to go with, sure.  

Well, now I'm interested in what you meant by transparency if, in your opinion, I am broadening the definition to include forthrightness.  What exactly do you mean when you use that word?

I've said a million times here that this comparison politics stuff has to stop.  Politician acceptability isn't something that they should be setting (and they are as soon as you start using them as a measuring stick for one another).  So if you don't want to distract from the awfulness of Trump, focus on the awfulness of Trump and stop bringing her up.  I will always balk at this sort of approach as it's a primary force in what produced these two yahoos as choices in the first place.

 

[Chaka]

I'm going to go ahead and given some data here, as I'm feeling benevolent today.

Have a look here at what the poor in the US own (and note this is an old table, the stats have gotten better on the whole).  "Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo."  That's not desperate poverty.  To make that statement is simply parroting a political meme.

No doubt there is a (very) small section of the population that is really struggling with poverty, but it's nowhere near the numbers you blithely claim.   The poverty line as defined here in the US is a political construct, not a measure of "desperate poverty".  

That table was based on Census Bureau data that were released in “Living Conditions in the United States, 2005".  Any issues with the accuracy thereof please take it up with the Feds.

I have read the full Heritage Foundation report that chart was pulled from and find it entirely lacking in any context. For example, what percentage of those people with all those nice things were financially solvent before the 2008 market crash, or before some other life tragedy like unexpected illness (which is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this country, if not the #1, because of our "screw you" attitude on providing affordable health care)? Were they supposed to sell virtually every single item they owned to satisfy the researchers at Heritage Foundation that they were worthy of the designation of poor? No, those numbers are highly dubious.

It's fine if you want to question the numbers provided by the US Census, but when you respond with numbers from likely far less reliable sources, and certainly without any context to understand those numbers, it makes it difficult to believe that you really want to understand the problem of poverty we are facing in this country and don't just want to push the ideas that make you comfortable with your position.

 

[Politician Spock]

In your opinion, where are these viable businesses going to come from?

Existing businesses seeing an unmet demand and expanding, as well as entrepreneurs doing it too. I'd prefer entrepreneurs do it, but they typically can't move as fast as existing businesses because of capital, so it will mostly come from existing business expansion. 

 

[Chaka]

I used to be in the "bootstraps" and "responsibility" camp but over time I learned more and have changed my position.

People love to question my conservative credentials (dyed in the wool fiscal conservative) because I have the audacity to suggest that we should take care of all our citizens. For believing that if you help people out of poverty they will provide a much bigger return on that investment instead of putting them to a perpetual cycle of using public assistance.  And for believing the same about providing affordable health care for every citizen, a healthy population is a productive population.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I used to be in the "bootstraps" and "responsibility" camp but over time I learned more and have changed my position.

People love to question my conservative credentials (dyed in the wool fiscal conservative) because I have the audacity to suggest that we should take care of all our citizens. For believing that if you help people out of poverty they will provide a much bigger return on that investment instead of putting them to a perpetual cycle of using public assistance.  And for believing the same about providing affordable health care for every citizen, a healthy population is a productive population.

Why shouldn't rich people be able to keep their money?    (FYI, I am in your camp and always get that question)

 

[humpback]

Existing businesses seeing an unmet demand and expanding, as well as entrepreneurs doing it too. I'd prefer entrepreneurs do it, but they typically can't move as fast as existing businesses because of capital, so it will mostly come from existing business expansion. 

Why aren't they doing this now?

 

[Politician Spock]

Why aren't they doing this now?

Because businesses that sell goods and pay their employees a living wage are at a disadvantage when competing against businesses that sell the same goods but don't pay livable wages to their employees. 

 

[humpback]

Because businesses that sell goods and pay their employees a living wage are at a disadvantage when competing against businesses that sell the same goods but don't pay livable wages to their employees. 

Okay, but why aren't they in business now if they'd be profitable?

 

[Politician Spock]

Okay, but why aren't they in business now if they'd be profitable?

Why are you suggesting they'd be profitable now?

 

[humpback]

Why are you suggesting they'd be profitable now?

If they wouldn't be profitable now why would they be profitable with higher labor costs?

 

[Chaka]

Why shouldn't rich people be able to keep their money?    (FYI, I am in your camp and always get that question)

That's a little vague. The short answer is that rich people should get to keep their money, but they should also pay higher taxes.

Depending on the degree of wealth we are talking about it is a little galling that the true complaint about higher taxes for rich people is that it would make them slightly less rich than they already are, or would be under a lower tax rate. But no one is talking about intentionally making anyone who is currently rich, not be rich anymore.

I would love to pay less taxes, we all would, but I also recognize that I have a responsibility (that word we love to throw around) to the society that helped me, to whatever degree, achieve my success. If it means that I have to settle for the Miele suite of appliances in my new kitchen and not the Gaggenau, well I think I'll somehow manage to live with it. And yes, that is actually something that is happening in my life right now. And if a higher tax rate means that in the future I'd have to go with Thermador or :gasp: Bosch, well I'll manage to pull through somehow.

Thoughts and prayers are appreciated.

 

[IC FBGCav]

That's a little vague. The short answer is that rich people should get to keep their money, but they should also pay higher taxes.

Depending on the degree of wealth we are talking about it is a little galling that the true complaint about higher taxes for rich people is that it would make them slightly less rich than they already are, or would be under a lower tax rate. But no one is talking about intentionally making anyone who is currently rich, not be rich anymore.

I would love to pay less taxes, we all would, but I also recognize that I have a responsibility (that word we love to throw around) to the society that helped me, to whatever degree, achieve my success. If it means that I have to settle for the Miele suite of appliances in my new kitchen and not the Gaggenau, well I think I'll somehow manage to live with it. And yes, that is actually something that is happening in my life right now. And if a higher tax rate means that in the future I'd have to go with Thermador or :gasp: Bosch, well I'll manage to pull through somehow.

Thoughts and prayers are appreciated.

Why should the I have to pay for lazy people who don't work?   That is not fair.   They can go out and work hard like me instead of getting hand outs.   My money should go to my family.   American can't afford to support and provide healthcare to all.   People need to earn what they want.

 

[Thunderlips]

The bolded is correct, especially the underlined part. If people not making a living wage are the result of government borrowing more money into existence, then LITERALLY EVERY WORKER in the country would not be making a living wage, because as you point out what the government does effects everyone. 

The reason why those that suck at capitalism are not making a living wage while those that are good at it are making a living wage despite what the government does to the currency is again, because they suck at capitalism. One thing one has to do to be good at capitalism is to make sure you get cost of living wage increases year after year after year after year. Those that suck at capitalism don't, and the government just let it happen by not making minimum wage increases. 

Exactly! The fact that it's not is because government failed to make the necessary increases.

It shouldn't be. There's absolutely NOTHING generous about getting the bare minimum needed to live. And making less than that is abhorrent. If you don't see that, something is very wrong with your point of view. 

Absolutely not. Again, the issue is too many people SUCK at capitalism. And not only does that make them losers at this game, it puts them in a downward spiral of losing. That is to say, the more they lose, the more desperate they become, and the more desperate they become the more they lose. Prices that are based on desperation are extreme. On one end of the spectrum if there is a drinking water shortage, such as there was in Flint Michigan a few years ago, those that have drinking water to sell hike the price up to ridiculous levels, and they'll get what they ask for it because people are desperate for clean drinking water. Ayn Rand disciples and their ilk say "well, that's the natural market price, nothing wrong with that." The rest of the world that actually have morals see that it's not a natural price at all. It's a price exploiting desperation, and it's immoral. This is why price gouging is illegal. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, exploiting the desperation of those in poverty is exploitation as well. It's immoral and the minimum wage laws exist to make it illegal. So, no I absolutely disagree that the market would naturally "invent" a market where those in poverty will get a livable wage without government intervention. Unregulated capitalism will naturally never result in that happening. 

I do not think doing the right thing should be thrown under the rug because someone people won't like it. 

This is a discussion that is needed to be had AFTER it is accepted that most people earning minimum wage deserve a livable wage. I agree completely that some people don't need a livable wage, for example, as you point out 16 year olds scooping ice cream. The discussion will be about exceptions of minimum wage requirements, such as perhaps making teenagers in school exceptions. For example, the current minimum wage has an exception, a lower amount for tipped employees. It wouldn't be hard at all to say workers attending high school are only entitled to a $7/hr minimum wage. But again, these types of discussions of how to work out the details aren't productive while so many hold the opinion that most people making minimum wage don't need more. 

I own a business. I employ 20 people. I know it's not easy. I also know that if a supplier raises prices on me and I can't find a replacement supplier with lower prices, then that's what I have to pay to continue being in business. I may have to increase prices to compensate. That may cause me to lose customers. That may put me out of business. That's the risk I knew could happen BEFORE I went into business. However, the reward of succeeding far exceeds the risk, and to be honest, if I was making people suffer in their lives in order to reduce the risk I'm taking to achieve the reward, that would make me an #######. If my success requires someone to suffer, then I'm not successful at all. 

Nice statement. 

 

[Politician Spock]

If they wouldn't be profitable now why would they be profitable with higher labor costs?

Because people can no longer get the goods they need cheaper from competitors paying their employees less than a livable wage. 

 

[Sand]

I have read the full Heritage Foundation report that chart was pulled from and find it entirely lacking in any context.

The statistics are the context.  I'd like to see what the latest census shows, though.

It's fine if you want to question the numbers provided by the US Census, but when you respond with numbers from likely far less reliable sources, 

I'm not questioning the US Census - that data comes from a US census report (the census site no longer has that report online).

 

[Thunderlips]

Poor people have VCRs, no need to worry anymore.

Yup.  But the really destitute have Betamax.  

 

[humpback]

Because people can no longer get the goods they need cheaper from competitors paying their employees less than a livable wage. 

Ah, so prices would go up, which offsets at least some if not most of the benefits of higher wages in the first place (for those who keep their jobs). It also puts us at an even greater disadvantage to lower cost countries.

I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the minimum wage some, but it's far from the "answer".

 

[Chaka]

Why should the I have to pay for lazy people who don't work?   That is not fair.   They can go out and work hard like me instead of getting hand outs.   My money should go to my family.   American can't afford to support and provide healthcare to all.   People need to earn what they want.

Again you are punishing millions of people who are hard working, American citizens who at one point or another were paying into the system that is trying to abandon them, based upon the actions of an insignificant number of bad actors.

To suggest that the vast majority of working poor are not working hard simply runs counter to reality. They do work hard, often much harder than any of us, however many of them are working hard at things that don't generate income like trying to get their kids to day care, or take care of sick family or having hours long commutes because they take public transport to their minimum wage jobs.

If we lift these people out of this cycle of poverty they get out of the system, stop using public resources and begin paying back into the system again providing a far greater ROI than the status quo.  It is sound policy both fiscally and morally.

 

[Chaka]

The statistics are the context.  I'd like to see what the latest census shows, though.

I'm not questioning the US Census - that data comes from a US census report (the census site no longer has that report online).

You question the same Census that puts 43.1 million Americans in poverty.

And let's just say it's off by 50%, that's 21.6 million Americans in poverty. Are you okay with that? Do you think the majority of them are there because they aren't hard workers or don't take responsibility?

What percentage of the poor do you think are truly there because they choose to not work hard or take any responsibility for their lives?

 

[Chaka]

Yup.  But the really destitute have Betamax.  

BETA IS THE BETTER TECHNOLOGY!!!

 

[Thunderlips]

BETA IS THE BETTER TECHNOLOGY!!!

Let them watch Betamax. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Ah, so prices would go up, which offsets at least some if not most of the benefits of higher wages in the first place (for those who keep their jobs). It also puts us at an even greater disadvantage to lower cost countries.

Prices should go up. The only reason they are so low now is because these businesses are creating burdens on society by not paying them livable wages. 

Some will lose jobs. This is just reflecting that the current unemployment number is misleading. The unemployment number doesn't really care if the employed are getting a livable wage or not. Our economy is currently a lot worse than people believe it is. The job losses will be temporary as these people now getting livable wages will be spending 100% of their wage increases immediately. They won't be making enough to be saving it. 

And we are always going to be at a disadvantage to countries that don't spend as much on national defense as we do. We shouldn't be creating burdens on society to close that gap. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

Again you are punishing millions of people who are hard working, American citizens who at one point or another were paying into the system that is trying to abandon them, based upon the actions of an insignificant number of bad actors.

To suggest that the vast majority of working poor are not working hard simply runs counter to reality. They do work hard, often much harder than any of us, however many of them are working hard at things that don't generate income like trying to get their kids to day care, or take care of sick family or having hours long commutes because they take public transport to their minimum wage jobs.

If we lift these people out of this cycle of poverty they get out of the system, stop using public resources and begin paying back into the system again providing a far greater ROI than the status quo.  It is sound policy both fiscally and morally.

I don't have the energy to play devil's advocate anymore on something I agree with.   There are other people that could put up a more passionate argument because they think they are right.

 

[Chaka]

I don't have the energy to play devil's advocate anymore on something I agree with.   There are other people that could put up a more passionate argument because they think they are right.

I dig it.  There will be plenty of people who come in and disagree, some of them with valid points. I look forward to the opportunity to learn more about this issue.

It is easy to talk about it on the macro scale but when you get into the weeds about how to actually reform our social safety net it truly is a nightmare. But just because it's tough doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, after all we're all about hard work, right?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well, now I'm interested in what you meant by transparency if, in your opinion, I am broadening the definition to include forthrightness.  What exactly do you mean when you use that word?

I've said a million times here that this comparison politics stuff has to stop.  Politician acceptability isn't something that they should be setting (and they are as soon as you start using them as a measuring stick for one another).  So if you don't want to distract from the awfulness of Trump, focus on the awfulness of Trump and stop bringing her up.  I will always balk at this sort of approach as it's a primary force in what produced these two yahoos as choices in the first place.

I was speaking about making financial documents and whatnot available and responding to media inquiries.  Her campaign was alway good about the latter, she was weak on the latter early in the campaign but better towards the end. And she was always excellent with the former, posting tax returns and Foundation financials and all that stuff early and readily.

i don't bring her up, I was responding to another post saying transparency was the problem with her campaign. If anyone voted for Trump over Clinton due to transparency concerns that person is an idiot.

 

[humpback]

Prices should go up. The only reason they are so low now is because these businesses are creating burdens on society by not paying them livable wages. 

Some will lose jobs. This is just reflecting that the current unemployment number is misleading. The unemployment number doesn't really care if the employed are getting a livable wage or not. Our economy is currently a lot worse than people believe it is. The job losses will be temporary as these people now getting livable wages will be spending 100% of their wage increases immediately. They won't be making enough to be saving it. 

And we are always going to be at a disadvantage to countries that don't spend as much on national defense as we do. We shouldn't be creating burdens on society to close that gap. 

I agree regarding the unemployment number and economy, but I disagree that the job losses will be temporary. I just don't see how a much higher minimum wage will lead to an increase in profitable businesses (and thus jobs).

 

[Dickies]

Ah, so prices would go up, which offsets at least some if not most of the benefits of higher wages in the first place (for those who keep their jobs). It also puts us at an even greater disadvantage to lower cost countries.

I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the minimum wage some, but it's far from the "answer".

It also gives people greater purchasing power.  Minimum wage earners rely on government assistance and spend every penny they earn on goods and services.  We are always going to be at a "disadvantage" to countries that pay low wages.  I'm sure someone in another part of the world does your job for less money too.  Are you in favor of removing the minimum wage altogether so that we can be more like these countries?

 

[humpback]

It also gives people greater purchasing power.  Minimum wage earners rely on government assistance and spend every penny they earn on goods and services.  We are always going to be at a "disadvantage" to countries that pay low wages.  I'm sure someone in another part of the world does your job for less money too.  Are you in favor of removing the minimum wage altogether so that we can be more like these countries?

Yes, but that's at least partially offset by higher costs, and if their benefits get cut because they earn more, then they won't have greater purchasing power at all (could even end up with less if costs rise a lot).

I know we're at a disadvantage to other countries, but increasing that disadvantage is going to have a negative impact. Doesn't mean overall it won't be beneficial, but it's silly to have the mindset of "we're already at a disadvantage, so who cares if we make it even larger?".

Yes, clearly I'm in favor of removing the minimum wage altogether. In fact, I think we should have employees pay employers for the privilege of working at their fine establishments. Where do you get this nonsense?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Hillary wasn't transparent about receiving the debate questions in advance.

 

[The Commish]

Well, now I'm interested in what you meant by transparency if, in your opinion, I am broadening the definition to include forthrightness.  What exactly do you mean when you use that word?

I've said a million times here that this comparison politics stuff has to stop.  Politician acceptability isn't something that they should be setting (and they are as soon as you start using them as a measuring stick for one another).  So if you don't want to distract from the awfulness of Trump, focus on the awfulness of Trump and stop bringing her up.  I will always balk at this sort of approach as it's a primary force in what produced these two yahoos as choices in the first place.

I was speaking about making financial documents and whatnot available and responding to media inquiries.  Her campaign was alway good about the latter, she was weak on the latter early in the campaign but better towards the end. And she was always excellent with the former, posting tax returns and Foundation financials and all that stuff early and readily.

i don't bring her up, I was responding to another post saying transparency was the problem with her campaign. If anyone voted for Trump over Clinton due to transparency concerns that person is an idiot.

Got it....ok.  On those specific aspects, she wins.  There's no question.  There's a lot more to her beginning with "I have both public and private opinions" (or whatever it was specifically that she said) that I take into consideration, plus being less than forthcoming in her investigations, changing her stories, making stories up etc.   Adding all that up, I get to the same place as the bold, but go a step further thinking anyone who thought either of them were transparent even most of the areas of meaning were idiots.  Her approach to her taxes seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  Based on who Donald is and what drives him, I was fairly confident we'd never really get anything out of him about his taxes.  There's no way he is worth as much as he claims.  That was a non-starter from the beginning.

 

[Dickies]

Yes, but that's at least partially offset by higher costs, and if their benefits get cut because they earn more, then they won't have greater purchasing power at all (could even end up with less if costs rise a lot).

I know we're at a disadvantage to other countries, but increasing that disadvantage is going to have a negative impact. Doesn't mean overall it won't be beneficial, but it's silly to have the mindset of "we're already at a disadvantage, so who cares if we make it even larger?".

Yes, clearly I'm in favor of removing the minimum wage altogether. In fact, I think we should have employees pay employers for the privilege of working at their fine establishments. Where do you get this nonsense?

I'm not criticizing you in any way, I just find the dilemma interesting.  If we are at a disadvantage to other countries when it comes to wages, do we widen the disadvantage, keep it where it is, or do we narrow the disadvantage (lowering/removing minimum wage).  If we decide the latter then how far do we go?

 

[Politician Spock]

I agree regarding the unemployment number and economy, but I disagree that the job losses will be temporary. I just don't see how a much higher minimum wage will lead to an increase in profitable businesses (and thus jobs).

I didn't say there would be an increase in profitable business. I said the businesses that pay less than a livable wage will be replaced with businesses that do. People will still buy the things they need. There will be plenty of businesses to sell them what they need, especially now that everyone can afford what they need to live.

 

[Politician Spock]

Yes, but that's at least partially offset by higher costs, and if their benefits get cut because they earn more, then they won't have greater purchasing power at all (could even end up with less if costs rise a lot).

I know we're at a disadvantage to other countries, but increasing that disadvantage is going to have a negative impact. Doesn't mean overall it won't be beneficial, but it's silly to have the mindset of "we're already at a disadvantage, so who cares if we make it even larger?".

Yes, clearly I'm in favor of removing the minimum wage altogether. In fact, I think we should have employees pay employers for the privilege of working at their fine establishments. Where do you get this nonsense?

How many minimum wage earners do you think get benefits?

 

[humpback]

I'm not criticizing you in any way, I just find the dilemma interesting.  If we are at a disadvantage to other countries when it comes to wages, do we widen the disadvantage, keep it where it is, or do we narrow the disadvantage (lowering/removing minimum wage).  If we decide the latter then how far do we go?

It's all open for debate- all I'm saying is that each scenario has pro's and con's that need to be considered else we suffer the dreaded "unintended consequences".

 

[humpback]

I didn't say there would be an increase in profitable business. I said the businesses that pay less than a livable wage will be replaced with businesses that do. People will still buy the things they need. There will be plenty of businesses to sell them what they need, especially now that everyone can afford what they need to live.

This reads like a liberal fairy tale.

How many minimum wage earners do you think get benefits?

Plenty (and raising the minimum wage wouldn't only impact minimum wage earners). It's probably the #1 argument in favor of raising the minimum wage, you've said in here that society shouldn't have to subsidize our low wages, and now you're trying to minimize it? This is just getting silly....

 

[Politician Spock]

This reads like a liberal fairy tale.

Plenty (and raising the minimum wage wouldn't only impact minimum wage earners). It's probably the #1 argument in favor of raising the minimum wage, you've said in here that society shouldn't have to subsidize our low wages, and now you're trying to minimize it? This is just getting silly....

Okay, I thought you were being serious. Obviously you are just here having fun.

Bye. 

 

[Chaka]

It's all open for debate- all I'm saying is that each scenario has pro's and con's that need to be considered else we suffer the dreaded "unintended consequences".

I am not sure you are factoring in that an increased minimum wage will lead to decreased reliance on the social safety net which will save us money.

I am not worried about arguments suggesting there will be some huge price jump in our goods & services, the protectionist policies that Trump is trying to enact could have a far worse impact that a minimum wage increase.

Either way as it relates to the minimum wage I think the cost of goods & services will remain net neutral at worst.

 

[humpback]

I am not sure you are factoring in that an increased minimum wage will lead to decreased reliance on the social safety net which will save us money.

I am not worried about arguments suggesting there will be some huge price jump in our goods & services, the protectionist policies that Trump is trying to enact could have a far worse impact that a minimum wage increase.

Either way as it relates to the minimum wage I think the cost of goods & services will remain net neutral at worst.

It should be pretty obvious from my posts if you read them- I am factoring it in as a positive, but there will also be negatives that need to be considered (mainly higher prices and fewer jobs). PS is the one who just questioned how many minimum wage earners receive benefits lol. We shouldn't just ignore the negatives, we should argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

You may not be worried about them, but that doesn't mean they won't happen (it won't be a huge jump, but costs will rise some). Again, it still could be better net-net, but purchasing power won't rise dollar for dollar with wage increases, and there very likely will be fewer jobs, despite what PS says.

Sure, there are plenty of policies that could have a worse impact, but not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

 

[Chaka]

It should be pretty obvious from my posts if you read them- I am factoring it in as a positive, but there will also be negatives that need to be considered (mainly higher prices and fewer jobs). PS is the one who just questioned how many minimum wage earners receive benefits lol. We shouldn't just ignore the negatives, we should argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

You may not be worried about them, but that doesn't mean they won't happen (it won't be a huge jump, but costs will rise some). Again, it still could be better net-net, but purchasing power won't rise dollar for dollar with wage increases, and there very likely will be fewer jobs, despite what PS says.

Sure, there are plenty of policies that could have a worse impact, but not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

I see that you are factoring in the potential for higher prices due to a higher minimum wage but I think that will ultimately be offset by a lower overall usage of the social safety net.

What it has to do with the discussion is I am curious as to your opinion on those issues and see if they are consistent. 

I see the bigger concern for the risk of increased prices is protectionist trade policies and threats to dissolve our trade agreements. Those are the things that keep our cost of goods down, if we lose out on the benefits of cheap foreign manufacturing we will see far bigger price increases than raising the minimum wage.  Additionally if we have to bring a significant amount of our manufacturing back to US soil (something I am not opposed to btw) those jobs will likely lead to higher than minimum wage salaries (automation could have a big impact on this, but likely not enough over the next eight years to notice) and you can bet that unions will start to grow again for the first time since Reagan. Are you in favor of those policies?

And is life really all about getting the cheapest goods? If things are more expensive and you suddenly can't afford them shouldn't you practice the behaviors that we expect the poor to practice in regards to spending habits? Well we should all practice them regardless of our financial status (as Shuke would say "Rule #1: Live below your means") I mean, if it benefits the country as a whole. Is your cheap 78" television really worth the price of not feeding Americans?  Couldn't you be perfectly happy with the 65" television?

 

[eoMMan]

I see that you are factoring in the potential for higher prices due to a higher minimum wage but I think that will ultimately be offset by a lower overall usage of the social safety net.

What it has to do with the discussion is I am curious as to your opinion on those issues and see if they are consistent. 

I see the bigger concern for the risk of increased prices is protectionist trade policies and threats to dissolve our trade agreements. Those are the things that keep our cost of goods down, if we lose out on the benefits of cheap foreign manufacturing we will see far bigger price increases than raising the minimum wage.  Additionally if we have to bring a significant amount of our manufacturing back to US soil (something I am not opposed to btw) those jobs will likely lead to higher than minimum wage salaries (automation could have a big impact on this, but likely not enough over the next eight years to notice) and you can bet that unions will start to grow again for the first time since Reagan. Are you in favor of those policies?

And is life really all about getting the cheapest goods? If things are more expensive and you suddenly can't afford them shouldn't you practice the behaviors that we expect the poor to practice in regards to spending habits? Well we should all practice them regardless of our financial status (as Shuke would say "Rule #1: Live below your means") I mean, if it benefits the country as a whole. Is your cheap 78" television really worth the price of not feeding Americans?  Couldn't you be perfectly happy with the 65" television?

And if the person making much less than you has an 80" TV AND can eat....but is being irresponsible elsewhere (no retirement savings, no health insurance, etc etc)? Then what? Continue to fund his/her bad decisions?

 

[Politician Spock]

And if the person making much less than you has an 80" TV AND can eat....but is being irresponsible elsewhere (no retirement savings, no health insurance, etc etc)? Then what? Continue to fund his/her bad decisions?

People making decent incomes make those bad decisions too. 

 

[Chaka]

And if the person making much less than you has an 80" TV AND can eat....but is being irresponsible elsewhere (no retirement savings, no health insurance, etc etc)? Then what? Continue to fund his/her bad decisions?

Okay, this is a popular theme with the debate about poverty.

So tell me, what percentage of poor people do you think that scenario represents?

 

[eoMMan]

Okay, this is a popular theme with the debate about poverty.

So tell me, what percentage of poor people do you think that scenario represents?

I have no clue what the actual percentage but you see it everyday.

 

[Henry Ford]

I have no clue what the actual percentage but you see it everyday.

Who sees it everyday?