15$ minimum wage

Author: drlebronski

Posts

Total: 66
#31
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,909
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because many minimum wage workers (those perminately out of school) don't search for better paying jobs on their own.  They are satisfied with their current job.
Their meaning at this point is to make money. What if we make you as rich, but you won’t need to leave!

Either way, I don’t think this is a solid reason.

#32
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,777
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
What if we make you as rich, but you won’t need to leave!
In order to make someone as rich from a minimum wage job as they would be from the jobs I propose minimum wage workers get, the minimum wage would have to be $27.5/hour.  This is infeasible.  Just have some minimum wage workers work more productive jobs.
#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
You sure about this?  The university of Georgetown found 13 million jobs in the US that only require a HS degree to do that pay $55K/year or more.  This is roughly $27/hour.  There are only 1.6 million minimum wage workers, the majority of whom are in highschool or college.  There are enough jobs for everyone.  People in these positions just need to search for them.
Of these jobs, how many would prefer to hire someone with a higher-level degree over just a high school diploma?
Of these jobs, how many require a specific set of skills and/or experience that isn't necessarily translated from higher-level degrees?
Of these minimum wage workers, how many have a GED to be eligible for these jobs?
Of these minimum wage workers, how many are able to accommodate for the lifestyle changes of a high-paying job that only requires a GED?

All you've demonstrated is that there are jobs with a minimal level of qualification, but you haven't demonstrated that there is a pool of workers that are likely to get or succeed in these roles.
#34
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,777
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Of these jobs, how many would prefer to hire someone with a higher-level degree over just a high school diploma?
Jobs might prefer to hire someone with a higher level degree, but given that they pay very high salaries and no college degree is required, such companies don't really care because college education isn't required.

Of these jobs, how many require a specific set of skills and/or experience that isn't necessarily translated from higher-level degrees?
If your referring to on the job training, you obtain that while working at the job.

Of these minimum wage workers, how many have a GED to be eligible for these jobs?
In my personal experience, the majority of minimum wage workers have at least a highschool diploma.  If they are perminately out of school, they can find better work.  They just need to look up the jobs they can get.


Of these minimum wage workers, how many are able to accommodate for the lifestyle changes of a high-paying job that only requires a GED?
I imagine the vast majority of them if not, all of them.  If they have families, they just bring their families to a new place to work.  They are probably renting, so they just need to find a new spot to rent (possibly).
#35
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Jobs might prefer to hire someone with a higher level degree, but given that they pay very high salaries and no college degree is required, such companies don't really care because college education isn't required.
A college degree isn't required for many jobs that require a college degree. It is still required because a college degree is a meaningful achievement. Just because a GED is a minimum, doesn't mean college degree isn't overwhelmingly preferred.

If your referring to on the job training, you obtain that while working at the job.
I'm referring to the fact that there are plenty of occupations that value skills and experience over a formal qualification, but if you have none of the three, you just aren't a competitive candidate. Why should someone take the risk of taking in someone who has absolutely no skills over someone who does? Moreover, what value does someone bring to the company such that they merit a high wage?

In my personal experience, the majority of minimum wage workers have at least a highschool diploma. If they are perminately out of school, they can find better work. They just need to look up the jobs they can get.
Your personal experience is irrelevant. 10% of US adults do not have a GED.

I imagine the vast majority of them if not, all of them. If they have families, they just bring their families to a new place to work. They are probably renting, so they just need to find a new spot to rent (possibly).
What you imagine is irrelevant. Moving is expensive and risky. If you are on minimum wage, this is probably an expense you likely cannot afford. 
#36
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,777
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
 It is still required because a college degree is a meaningful achievement. Just because a GED is a minimum, doesn't mean college degree isn't overwhelmingly preferred.
College degrees are either required or irrelevant for a job.  The jobs I'm talking about have a college degree as irrelevant.  With a mechanic for instance, a college degree is irrelevant.

I'm referring to the fact that there are plenty of occupations that value skills and experience over a formal qualification, but if you have none of the three, you just aren't a competitive candidate.  Why should someone take the risk of taking in someone who has absolutely no skills over someone who does?
There is a difference between skills and experience.  Skills can be obtained through courses the applicant would have to do that are relatively cheap to do.  Experience for a job isn't necessary, but only useful for higher salaries.  Every single mechanic was at one point, not experienced.  Yet their company accepted that and gave them the experience to do well because they knew that they could hire an inexperience mechanic for less and when that mechanic gets more experienced, he gets raises.  People with no experience are cheaper to hire.

Moreover, what value does someone bring to the company such that they merit a high wage?
The work they do is more productive than working at McDonalds.

10% of US adults do not have a GED.
I thought this figure was higher(25%).  But given that the unemployment rate is 6%, the proportion of the labor force working a minimum wage job is about 1%, and not all people unemployed or working a minimum wage job lack a HS degree or GED, the proportion of people that lack a HS degree and are able to find a job that is not a minimum wage job is well over 75% of the people that lack a HS degree.

Moving is expensive and risky
How?  You just find a new place to rent.


#37
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
College degrees are either required or irrelevant for a job.  The jobs I'm talking about have a college degree as irrelevant.  With a mechanic for instance, a college degree is irrelevant.
When employers look for employees, they look for the best possible candidates. This gives them the most value for their investment. What "best" is varies across the different industries, but is generally a mix of experience, skills, education, cultural fit and personal traits. When employees ask for GEDs at a minimum, they are specifically asking for the educational and personal trait aspects that earning a GED implies.

For example, a GED implies a baseline level of academic ability, the ability to learn, and the personal traits that allow you to learn. However, as we've already discussed, the vast majority of US adults have a GED. You aren't special for achieving a GED. Hence having a GED does not imply you are the best possible candidate. It only implies you have that most basic possible qualification to be considered.  

Enter college degrees. The amount of people who are degree holders is significantly lower. They show that you have committed yourself to an intense level of advanced study for at least four years, in a reasonably more niche field. Are you special? Not really, but having a college degree implies you are able to learn and apply that learning to a higher degree than a GED does.

If you're paying a significant amount over minimum wage for someone, you are going to be making damn well sure that that someone is the best possible candidate. This includes levels of education not stated.

There is a difference between skills and experience.  Skills can be obtained through courses the applicant would have to do that are relatively cheap to do.  Experience for a job isn't necessary, but only useful for higher salaries.  Every single mechanic was at one point, not experienced.  Yet their company accepted that and gave them the experience to do well because they knew that they could hire an inexperience mechanic for less and when that mechanic gets more experienced, he gets raises.  People with no experience are cheaper to hire.
Jobs that need neither skills nor experience are minimum wage jobs. A fact that can be verified by scanning a jobs board briefly...

The work they do is more productive than working at McDonalds.
I think you'll find that those without skills and experience who try to perform in a role that requires skills and experience are rather unproductive.

How?  You just find a new place to rent.

And to be clear, if you are on minimum wage, you probably do not have a surplus of dollars to throw around for a job that may or may not get, which is where the risk comes in. In fact if you're living paycheck to paycheck, you probably don't even have a surplus full stop. I believe we've already gone over this before where you thought someone working for a fuckton of hours a day was viable standard of living?
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Again - no verification to prove you aren't lying, and nothing to say that this happens widespread and that you aren't (Given that this is true) aren't an outlier. 
#39
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
By some estimates bequests and transfers account for at least half of aggregate wealth (Gale and Scholz 1994), have recently averaged 3 percent of total household disposable personal income (Feiveson and Sabelhaus 2018), and account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic or socioeconomic indicator (Hamilton and Darrity 2010).8 
From your own source - this is literally a repeat of our debate.

You see-  I consider the interpretation of the experts themselves, consider this little tidbit:
They are also more likely to have a parent with a college degree. Since higher levels of education are associated with higher levels of wealth (see, for example, the Bulletin article), this association suggests White and other families are likely to have wealthier parents than Black or Hispanic families.
You see- wealth is accumilated over multiple generations - with things such as college degrees enhancing the likelyhood of increased wealth. Considering that black families were heavily segregated since even before the 1920s. and generations are considered around 30 years on average, I'd say 3 generations to accumliate wealth, not considering the already heavy lead white families had - is more than enough to account for it. 

What I'm saying is that you are considering one generation - and it isn't enough - there's a reason why your own paper attributes this to be one of the more of the racial wealth gap than anything else - cuz' the rates have increased! As in - the rates of black families getting inheritance, and the amount inhereited. 
#40
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,017
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
From your own source - this is literally a repeat of our debate.
Too bad you forfeited. Hopefully we can debate again sometime!

By some estimates bequests and transfers account for at least half of aggregate wealth (Gale and Scholz 1994), have recently averaged 3 percent of total household disposable personal income (Feiveson and Sabelhaus 2018), and account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic or socioeconomic indicator (Hamilton and Darrity 2010).8 
Yeah I have seen this info before because this is a subject that really interests me. I find the claim that inheritance/gifts is the genesis of up to 50% of private wealth in the United States incredibly dubious, to say the least. For one thing, the wealthiest people in the country got that way through holding shares of their companies (think people like Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, Musk) which was wealth that didn't exist a generation ago. But to be sure, there is a lot of inherited wealth in the United States...but the point is that it is heavily, heavily skewed towards the top, whatever percentage of the total it is. This is why we use medians, which are not skewed by the tails. 70% of whites receive no inheritance at all, and for those that do the median inheritance is quite modest. I walked you through the math in my last post, it accounts for very little of the wealth gap between the median black and median white household.

You see- wealth is accumilated over multiple generations - with things such as college degrees enhancing the likelyhood of increased wealth. Considering that black families were heavily segregated since even before the 1920s. and generations are considered around 30 years on average, I'd say 3 generations to accumliate wealth, not considering the already heavy lead white families had - is more than enough to account for it. 

It's actually the opposite of this. Most families LOSE their wealth after 3 generations. I find the numbers in this article a bit dubious (found it after ten seconds of googling) but there's a reason "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is a saying https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd-generation-2018-10

I mean do you really think that there is a significant degree of wealth in the median white household that dates back to the 1950s? It's super difficult to get information on this but that doesn't seem plausible to me AT ALL. 

They are also more likely to have a parent with a college degree. Since higher levels of education are associated with higher levels of wealth (see, for example, the Bulletin article), this association suggests White and other families are likely to have wealthier parents than Black or Hispanic families.
This is an explanation for the wealth gap that isn't grounded in systemic racism. If white people generally have higher levels of education, it makes perfect sense they would be wealthier on the aggregate, for the same reason that Asian-Americans are wealthier than white Americans are. Now if you want to argue that minorities don't go to college because of discrimination that's a different point. Considering affirmative action and all the special scholarships they have access to this isn't convincing to me.

It's very likely imo that in the future as the boomers die the inheritance and wealth gaps between black and white Americans will widen further. Inequality in general is widening. But it isn't going to be from wealth gained in the 1950s during Jim Crow and Redlining. The vast majority of people who were adults in the 1950s have already died and their inheritances have already been passed down--and we can see that the median one wasn't all that impressive. What the boomers leave behind will come from wealth generated mostly in the 1980s-2000s. I know it's your opinion that we are still in a racist country but surely you'd agree that it's a tougher sell to argue that black people had no opportunities in the 1980s and 1990s than during Jim Crow, no?

Anyway, given the information we do have on median inherited wealth, it is not plausible at all that this is the driver of the median black-white wealth gap. The math simply does not check out. Median families of all races for the most part didn't have their wealth handed to them, but instead earned it. 
#41
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
Dude you really aren't comprehending this apparently - as black people were redlined and discriminated, and whites began mounting more wealth (which, by the way, not a single source on that article, please get something more credible), and black people are then less likely to go to college - that was my point - it actually is tied in - cuz' guess what -  your own source disagrees with you - because you are cherry picking - you take what you want and ignore everything else - it's not rational nor evidenced in the first place. You like the appearance of being right, try to actually be right next time - jeez. 
#42
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,017
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
The one misunderstanding is you. The assertion that the wealth of the median household in America is derived from inheritance is simply false, because the median household regardless of race does not even receive an inheritance. Of the household wealth that exists currently, most of it does not date back to the 1950s or earlier. If you want to prove me wrong put up some numbers and do the math.  

You like the appearance of being right, try to actually be right next time - jeez.
Try treating other people you’re conversing with respectfully. What I wrote to you was a well reasoned discussion of ideas, in good faith 
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,741
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Only in America is it illegal for a worker to voluntarily accept a "slave wage"
#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
It's hard to give you good faith when you have repeatedly argued that cherry-picking is "so swell", I could screenshot the whole thing if you want? Dude, I don't argue with you in good faith, you lost my confidence when you literally admitted to cherry picking - without even mentioning it. 

The Black-white wealth gap today is a continuation of decades-long trends in wealth inequality, as shown in figure 1. Over the past 30 years, the median wealth of white households has consistently dwarfed that of Black households—ranging from a gap of $106,900 in 1992 to $185,400 in 2007 (both adjusted for inflation to 2019 dollars). Furthermore:
  • In the second quarter of 2020, white households—who account for 60 percent of the U.S. population—held 84 percent ($94 trillion) of total household wealth in the U.S.
  • Comparatively, Black households—who account for 13.4 percent of the U.S. population—held just 4 percent ($4.6 trillion) of total household wealth.
So... basically, when the same thing happens over and over again, to the same demographic, disparities tend to pop up. 
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,741
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
minimum wage laws fall under the category of "the average person is too stupid to be trusted with the freedom to choose responsibly for himself, therefore the government will step in and take that choice away from the people"

There are countless regulatory laws that fall under this category, such as seatbelt laws, laws against school choice, and laws severely limiting self-employment.

It's nothing more than a weak justification for a power grab by elites, and there is absolutely no wonder why ALL monopolies support the minimum wage as a legal means to crush competition.
#46
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,017
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
I never once argued there wasn’t a black-white wealth gap so I don’t see why you think pointing it out is an own. You asserted that the median household in America gets their wealth through inheritance and this is why the wealth gap exists, because black people were discriminated against 60 years ago. I walked you through the numbers that showed actually no, we can compare the median wealth gap with the median inheritance (for the 30% of whites who get one) and it explains only a small portion of the gap. You have not given any competing numbers. 

I also find it extremely implausible that substantial wealth from the 1950s or before still exists in typical white families, although I did admit to you it’s very difficult to parse this out. But just go plug very small numbers into a TVM calculator. If the median family was able to hold onto even a small amount of wealth that long and not spend it everyone should be rich by now (compound interest = life) and yet we don’t see that. Where are your numbers?
#47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
No - you cherry picked the numbers that showed TODAY black and white families get the same level of inhereitance, and that TODAY Black Americans get only 1/3 of what white people, however, you completely ignore the fact that this is a generational problem as the people who wrote the report you used literally specifcy, you know, that it causes more of the black/white gap than anything else? Kinda' interesting how you and your sources always disagree-  then I provided more evidence  which you have... ignored? 

And nope - you see - inhereitance also happens through housing, locations with good schools, prestige, and higher percentages of rich people yeah - so - its almost like if what I'm saying is true, then black people would face educational discrimination, housing discrimination, and an underrepresentation in rich people for their population.... oh, that is whats happening! As I literally  cited in my first source. You cherry pick dude, if you're gonna use a source, actually read all of it, instead of ignoring the bits you don't like. 
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,741
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
I really hate the term "black-white wealth gap" considering Nigerian-Americans make far above the median household income. 

It's obviously a culture problem and not a skin color problem.
#49
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,416
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
It's obviously a culture problem and not a skin color problem.
Spoken like a true Trumpeteer.  All for Trumpet and Trumpet for aTrumpet whites who are racist, bigoted and espouse repeated lies that encourage uneccessary violence. Sad lack of moral integrity that is in denial of 100's years of the obvious in front of eyes.

So when do these Trumpeteers believe that racism ended?  Maybe they believe racism never existed?  Maybe they dont see skin color because of brain issues that gets shut off that the other 76 million or more do see?

What we see with economics is the currency value for stuff always goes higher, and/or the currecncy value loses all all relevance, and becomes obsolete.

Currency is false prophet managed by those with money and those who sniff  butts of that type, because, they see no alternative.


All-for-one and one-for-all is the only way humanity is going to survive till 2232 or longer. Or a few may survive the huge amount of sufferring that appears to be over the horizon. 
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,741
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Why isn't America systemically racist against Nigerian immigrants? Many who come here much poorer than most POC born in the USA.

Are they just a special shade of Black skin?
#51
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,017
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - you cherry picked the numbers that showed TODAY black and white families get the same level of inhereitance, and that TODAY Black Americans get only 1/3 of what white people, however, you completely ignore the fact that this is a generational problem as the people who wrote the report you used literally specifcy, you know, that it causes more of the black/white gap than anything else?
This is not a fair characterization. You argued that wealth for the typical household in the United States primarily comes from home equity (true) and inheritance (false.) I didn't "cherry pick" numbers--I used the numbers that exist regarding what percentage of people receive an inheritance, and what the median amount is, and did the math to figure out how much this contributes to the wealth gap between the median black and white household. Now, what you're hung up about is this statement: 

By some estimates bequests and transfers account for at least half of aggregate wealth (Gale and Scholz 1994), have recently averaged 3 percent of total household disposable personal income (Feiveson and Sabelhaus 2018), and account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic or socioeconomic indicator (Hamilton and Darrity 2010)
Which is a completely fair thing for you to bring up! But in my last post, I gave some reasons why I don't agree with these estimates, and how figuring this out is INCREDIBLY difficult. We have decent (not perfect) data on inheritance but anything beyond that is nebulous at best. Why don't you do some research and point out some competing numbers, because I did the math for you and it simply doesn't add up. The bolded part isn't even relevant at all to the discussion because that's talking about the total, not the experience of the median household. The second part is relevant but it is, recall, still an estimate. The study it links to is paywalled and is about baby bonds (idk) so who knows. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that intergenerational wealth in general makes up the majority of the wealth gap because as we can see from the hard data that for median households inheritance only explains around 10% of the gap. That is a loooooooot of "intergenerational transfers." If you've got numbers put em up!

Kinda' interesting how you and your sources always disagree-  then I provided more evidence  which you have... ignored? ...You cherry pick dude, if you're gonna use a source, actually read all of it, instead of ignoring the bits you don't like. 
This is a very uncharitable thing to say. I used the source appropriately because I was citing it for the hard data on median inheritance value. 

I remember when we debating immigration you got really hung up about the fact that the author of the article I used for my meat packing case study was pro-immigration. Now I admit it is a fun, cheeky thing for you to point out in a debate context and I don't blame you for it. But neither you nor he actually disputed the facts I was citing, which was about how the meatpacking industry was destroyed by an influx of cheap labor. You don't get to just say "ahh well the author illogically concludes that immigration is good anyway so your facts are wrong!" Likewise, you can't say "well sure thett, you laid out the numbers for me but your source mentions another study that might disagree, so you're wrong!" You gotta do the work. 

Here is an example that may illustrate our disagreement on the use of sources...I'm sure you have heard of those famous studies about sending resumes with "black" names and "white names" to employers and seeing how the black sounding names get call backs less often. Those studies have been criticized for potentially revealing class bias and not racial bias (sure Lakisha loses to Robert Bruce III, but so would Billy-Bob.) Some researchers did a study where instead of using "black" sounding first names, they used surnames that were overwhelmingly black, overwhelmingly latino, and overwhelmingly white and used the same first names. What they found was that there was "no statistically significant differences across race, ethnic or gender groups." However, this clearly wasn't what they expected or wanted to find, and the article cites the co-author himself who isn't sure about the conclusions because he doesn't know if employers were able to know if a surname was "black" or not (although hispanic ones would be obvious), so it's possible that employers would choose to discriminate if they knew. Do you think it would be inappropriate to cite this source if you were arguing against systemic discrimination? Personally, I don't think it would be at all. We have a study with a certain methodology, and these were the results. 

Ultimately it's an appeal to authority. It's a solid authority to appeal to, but I trust myself to be able to read the results and come to my own conclusions. Make sense? I've treated you with respect (and will continue to do so) and ask that you do the same for me. Picking into peoples sources is ABSOLUTELY fine, but implying that I'm an idiot or being dishonest when I'm just being nuanced isn't appreciated.

#52
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,017
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
I really hate the term "black-white wealth gap" considering Nigerian-Americans make far above the median household income. 
Well they are a small enough group that they likely don’t impact the median that much, but yeah. Pretty weird that such a deeply systemically racist society allows so many immigrant groups to have such high incomes and levels of wealth  
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,741
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Well they are a small enough group that they likely don’t impact the median that much, but yeah. Pretty weird that such a deeply systemically racist society allows so many immigrant groups to have such high incomes and levels of wealth  

It's clearly a cultural problem as Dr. Sowell discusses at length in his audiobook.

Not sure if you have time for it, but the first 3 hours has most of the info.

#54
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
Um here's why I won't respond - you already strawmanned me in the first paragraph - my claim was regarding generation wealth - and your own article agreed it to be caused by a gap in inhereitance - you are so dishonest-  just admit your lie and we can move on. 
#55
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
I was raised by a conservative household and have always been told that raising the minimum wage will only increase costs on everything from housing to food. What is the liberal or libertarian counter-argument?
Topic's author
#56
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@K_Michael
#57
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,416
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Are they just a special shade of Black skin?
I dunno. Apparrently you are the Trumpeteer who is expert on Nigerans, so please fill us in on your Nigerian knowledge base.

Who doe Nigerian's encourage and support? Trumpet, Biden, Harris, Obama, Rice, Powell, Herman Cain { deceased from CoVid-2 did not wear mask as Trumpet rally }..."Drawing on his up-from-poverty story, his experience as a pizza-chain executive and even his resonant singing voice, Herman Cain launched an unlikely run for the presidency that briefly landed him at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination early in the 2012 campaign."....


..."When he stumbled over questions about foreign policy, he fell back on his signature “9-9-9” tax plan — a 9 percent corporate tax rate, 9 percent income tax, and 9 percent national sales tax.
...Many economists said the idea was an unworkable fantasy, and some wags derided it as “Plan 9-9-9 From Outer Space,” after a notoriously bad 1950s science fiction movie.
....Mr. Cain angered some Black voters when he declared that he had “left the Democrat plantation a long time ago,” referring to his earlier allegiance to the Democratic Party, and with his statement that he did not believe “racism in this country holds anybody back in a big way.”







#58
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,017
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Lmao you just did the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la I can’t hear you!” 

#59
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,826
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@K_Michael
I've been told that $10-12 minimum wage would be beneficial, but I've heard $15 would destroy small businesses
Topic's author
#60
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Vader
Most businesses have enough to pay 15$ an hour but its inevitable that some would fall. 
and some might even get a boost