Long Conversation

The game is simple: you have to continue the discussion, preferably from where the last person left off, in a constructive way. Spamming is reported.

I will start the first topic for discussion: Should the minimum wage be raised?

That brings up a question: In what country? America? For sure, I'm not sure what the minimum wage is in other countries, but $7.50 an hour is much below the living wage. 

In the U.S. yes. And/or the creation of very strong unions.

The stock market isn’t an accurate indicator of a healthy economy, it’s the middle class.

I have always had minimum wage jobs, it is enough to live on, if you are frugal. Poor Americans are rich compared to many other countries.

Poor Americans don’t live in those countries.

The anecdotal experience of one is not enough to discount the queries of the plenty - furthermore, not everybody is in your same situation, there are some who have a family with only that wage - the fact of the matter is that saying, "I had it.. it was fine." Is not nearly enough to excuse the pitedly poor wage offered by America. It is mathematically not enough for people to live as they need to.

For constructive clarification: yes, especially the US, however other nations could be brought up.

Poor americans smoke $8 a pack cigarettes and have cell phones and x boxes.

Poor people shouldn't make babies. It's that simple.

"If you can't afford a vet, you can't afford a pet" have you ever heard that? There should be a meme like that directed at humans.

Which aren’t worth the amount people work. Addiction is a coping mechanism. It makes people complaisant ecanomically.

So you are arguing in restricting an entire demographic of people's reproductive rights rather than give them enough money to live on? How callous of you; furthermore, no, poor Americans do not have cigarettes nor x-boxes, at least not all of them - you have no statistical proof to claim such a thing, and the numerous homeless would attest that such a thing isn't true.

They are willing to pay that much.

Did I say restrict? No. It is just common sense. It's morally irresponsible to have children if you can't afford their food, shelter, medical care, schooling, and those are just the basics.

They help people cope. Well cellphones are kind of a necessity now. Also there’s a thing called planned obsolescence as well.

Sorry for the edits.

Its a moral atrocity to restrict a person's wage below what they need to survive, the ability to not support the child comes from society's failure, not the other way around.

Motherhood and fatherhood is an individual responsibility. You are NOT a victim of societal injustice if you can't afford kids.

You’re such a bad faith actor. I bet you would turn your position around if it turned into a discussion about taxes. 

By the societal contract that everybody in society is afforded to - every citizen has an obligation to support the society that they live in with monetary support, and obey the laws which seek to help provide safety for the inhabitants; however, in return, the society must provide sufficient resources which people can live off of. In today's world, money is quite the resource, and our society is not providing enough of it to us - so much that most of it goes to an extreme minority towards the top - the whole "the top 1%" thing is actually descriptive of the monetary distribution of America - and you seem to not recognize this as a problem

A natural society is always a heirarchy. It's just how humans operate. Forcing socialism or communism is unnatural, and it simply doesn't work.

A natural society is always a heirarchy. It's just how humans operate. Forcing socialism or communism is unnatural, and it simply doesn't work

So you assert; however, you provide no substantiation that that is how it ought to be - you might as well be using a textbook naturalistic fallacy. Naturally, we all compete against others for food and water; however, it would make more sense that we just give everybody food and water, unless you believe that people at the top of the hierarchy ought to get more resources they need to live? Well, then I suppose you'd also be okay with dysgenics, hm?

Let’s just bring back serfdom then you anarcho capitalist.

If you give people everything, the majority will take advantage of it and not contribute to society.

Billionaires don’t spend their money. They horde it on the backs of their workers.

Anarcho? what is that? If it's an anarchist, I believe that there should be laws. Anarchy doesn't work with large populations.

Not sure I believe that, or what that has to do with this conversation.

Everything? How about the necessity - people should take advantage of those. This is a red herring on your part, I never said to give the majority everything, I am arguing that they should get enough money to support themselves, and you have failed, after several attempts, of even coming close to justifying not giving them that. Furthermore, each time you post it is a bare assertion, with absolutely no substantiation to back it up. The most wealthy will continue to take advantage of their position, and make the rest of the country poorer as a result. They are the one's being superfluous not the majority

I said anarcho capitalist. And I referred to surfdom which were the peasants under feudalism. Do some research. 

That’s what capitalism will turn into when corporations are able to hire private militaries and eventually create their own.

As have you.

What Americans aren't getting what they need to survive? People in classes such as the disabled, mentally or physically, children, the elderly, addicts, should be provided for. Able bodied and minded should not.