Total posts: 332
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If they want to talk about forum related stuff in debates let them. They would lose the debate anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I think the problem may have went away. I was able to post. There should be an option to log what people do on this site, and only moderators can see the log, and then if someone gets an error, the moderators can see what happened prior, and try to replicate that error, to find the source of the problem. I know other forum-based sites that do this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I talked about the ninth circuit blocking Trump from making America great again and cracking down on illegal immigration, in a different thread. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2257/post_links/98563
Lile Ethang5 said though, Trump has been getting blocked repeatedly from doing things like funding and building his border wall. He was finally able to build it though.
they can usually afford the $100 saw that can cut right through it.
Well first of all, even if they tried to cut through the border wall, they would still have to deal with surveillance cameras, and/or border patrol agents that would arrest/shoot them on sight for destroying American property. Besides, saws tend to make a lot of noise, which would attract attention and lead to those intruders getting stopped by the border patrol.
You have to remember that the southern border has multiple layers of defense against illegal aliens. Even if they get through one of those lines, they still have to deal with the others. The border wall is meant to act as that extra layer of defense.
Not only that, but most of these migrants are coming from poor countries, so not all of them can afford saws. If they could, you would see all of them sawing through the wall.
Secondly, if you're saying that people can just saw through walls, what's the point of having any wall in America? Do you live in a house or apartment with walls? Why bother having walls around where you sleep when criminals can break through those too? Why bother locking your doors at night when those can be broken down?
Most citizens who are against the wall like the Obamas have walls surrounding their own property, just like how many of them who want to ban guns, like Hillary Clinton, have armed guards for themselves. It's hypocritical.
If a court blocks it, then it was illegal. That is how courts work.
What the courts should block is people like Gavin Newsom from giving free health care and college to illegal aliens using American tax dollars, while ignoring all the homeless people who are camping in tents, sticking needles/drugs in themselves, and pooping/peeing on the ground.
But Gavin Newsom needs to cater to those immigrants for support/votes, because that's far more important to him, apparently.
Trump's tax cuts help the wealthy, which allows them to help the middle class by creating more jobs, which allows them to help the poor by paying their tax dollars for the welfare/SNAP benefits that they receive. That's the basic idea of Trickle Down Economics. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. It's working.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I was trying to respond to HistoryBuff's comment when I got the error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I'm currently using an LG Aristo 2. https://www.phonearena.com/phones/LG-Aristo-2_id10782
My service provider is Metro Pcs.
My ip addresses are 2607:fb90:5488:79a:83f:db06:a809:5ac8 (ipv6) and 172.58.228.205 (ipv4)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@Vader
@Ramshutu
@Speedrace
Can anyone of you check it out?
Created:
Posted in:
I tried to post a reply to someone's comment and I got a blank white screen along with that error message.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ethang5, this is how you do it, so it looks like this, where their name is in blue. You don't manually type in the "-->@Dustryder" you just enter their name in the box and it does the rest for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You're supposed to put their name in the box where it says "Enter a list of receivers' usernames separated by commas" not in the post itself. You'll know if you did it right when it's in blue.
Also, Democrats, as well as the ninth circuit, have been blocking Trump from making America great again for at least a year now, which is something I've explained to dustryder. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2257/post_links/98563
Yet people still blame Trump for not doing anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@David
@drafterman
@TheRealNihilist
It's usually better that threads are locked instead of deleted. If a person went on a thread and said bad stuff, deleting the thread means that nobody will be able to see what that person did wrong, and nobody will be able to learn from that person's mistakes. Plus, a deleted thread makes it easier for that person to claim that they did nothing wrong, and that the moderators abused their power. Keeping the thread locked but visible allows others to see for themselves what went wrong, and learn from the person's mistakes.
The only time it would be better to delete a thread would be if the person was posting confidential/private information like a social security number, and violating someone's privacy, something which would lead to the website getting seized or shut down by the government due to it hosting illegal/copyrighted content.
In a real crime-based situation, you actually want to preserve the evidence, not destroy it. This is also why I am against censoring/banning the video/manifesto of the New Zealand ChristChurch attacke
on March 15 2019 because it destroys evidence, and makes it easier for people to say it never happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Is that you in the profile picture? https://imgur.com/a/TVLR61B
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mage-CPA
So the problem isn't that minimum wages are going up (even though it's part of the problem) but rather the real problem is that too many people are growing up unskilled to begin with, and that there aren't enough skilled people.
It makes sense because, like you said, more and more unskilled people are being forced to compete with skilled people. I'm thinking if those unskilled people started becoming more skilled, it would be easier for them to make a decent wage, and harder for them to get replaced or priced out.
Part of the problem could also be that most people nowadays like to condition themselves to do only the bare minimum amount of work required to get by, which could be why so many people choose simple, low-paying unskilled jobs in the first place. It makes sense to these people because, why put in all that extra effort to get by when you could just as easily get by with far less effort through a simple low-skilled job?
However, as the years go by and minimum wages go up, that "bare minimum" amount of work required also goes up, and those who have been conditioned their whole lives to do what once was the bare minimum amount required to get by, but now have to do even more work, are going to struggle to compete with those who are already used to doing more than the bare minimum.
As the years go by, unskilled cheap labor becomes less valuable and replaced by robots, while skilled labor becomes more valuable.
If unskilled people don't start developing marketable skills soon, they will eventually be priced out regardless if the minimum wage increases or not.
One of my solutions to combat this, back in post #86, was to improve our education system so that people learn valuable skills and don't have to be stuck with useless college degrees, suffering from student loan debt, all while working a low-skilled job. Most of what people (including myself) learn in both school and college, especially in history-based classes, are useless facts that they will never use in their lives, as opposed to learning more valuable things that can really help them later on in their lives.
You have so many people graduating, not knowing valuable skills, who instead learned/memorized useless facts, and the only thing their "skilled" at is memorizing and scoring well on standardized mutiple-choice tests, which doesn't help them get into a good-paying job, and keeps them stuck in low skilled low paying jobs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
What I'm saying is, while the fish doesn't charge you to fish it, and while ecology doesn't charge the fish to live, different species still work together to maintain an ecosystem.
The sun gives off heat energy. Plants take the time to turn that energy into food. Water helps the plants grow. Primary Consumers, Herbivores, and Omnivores take the time to locate those plants and eat them. Secondary Consumers and Carnivores then work to hunt down and eat the Primary Consumers so they survive. All of the plants, Primary Consumers, and Secondary Consumers then reproduce to make up for whatever is lost. There is also a limited supply of certain resources, so some species then have to compete with each other. Money is not involved in these cases, but time and effort still are.
What that baby got for free (which is the milk), the mother had to take the time to work for. The mother would have had to eat right, drink, sleep well, and take care of herself so she could produce that milk for the baby to begin with.
What part of that am I "clueless" about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Just because they "are plenty employed" and that unemployment is still low doesn't mean that nobody got priced out, nor does it mean that nobody had their hours reduced, profit margins go down, or prices raised, to compensate for the wage increase.
In all, 4.3 million workers are slated to receive a hike as they earn less than the new minimum wage in their respective states. Well, that’s what’s meant to happen. Judging by the fallout from recent hikes, it seems things aren’t going according to plan.
Minimum Wage Massacre
In February, Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright said the firm expects wages to rise at least 4% in 2017. Wendy’s has three options to offset the rising costs.
First, they could cut margins, but with an 8% margin, that’s unlikely. The second option is to raise prices. Given how price-sensitive consumers are these days, that too is a non-starter. Finally, the firm could reduce the amount of labor they use… and that’s exactly what they did. Wendy’s eliminated 31 hours of labor per location, per week.
However, their locations are just as busy. To keep output steady, they are planning to install automated kiosks in 16% of their locations by the end of 2017. David Trimm, Wendy’s CIO said the timeframe for payback on the machines would be less than two years, thanks to labor savings.
Market leader McDonald’s has also been automating. Last November, the firm said every one of its 14,000 US stores will be replacing cashiers with automated kiosks. McDonald’s has actually prioritized these changes in locations like Seattle and New York that have higher minimum wages.
For companies, paying entry-level, unskilled workers the same they would pay a manager or a seasoned employee doesn’t make any sense—not because employers aren’t compassionate but because they would have to pull in more money to afford these high wages.
When governments force them to pay unskilled workers more, they necessarily have to cut costs somewhere to avoid losing money. After all, the goal is staying open and profitable. If the employer is losing money, he or she can’t pay anyone anything.
The way they find to cut costs is to cut the number of employees on payroll. And precisely because labor laws are already so suffocating, employers must use other excuses to fire employees, as “I can’t afford paying you and hundreds of others the minimum wage” is not enough of an excuse.
Of course, workers who fought for the minimum wage increase feel they are being unfairly targeted. But the reality is that what’s missing is some basic understanding of economics, which would help them realize that simply increasing the minimum wage by decree does nothing but limit the labor market, hurting the unskilled and the poor more than any other groups.
When governments force them to pay unskilled workers more, they necessarily have to cut costs somewhere to avoid losing money. After all, the goal is staying open and profitable. If the employer is losing money, he or she can’t pay anyone anything.
The way they find to cut costs is to cut the number of employees on payroll. And precisely because labor laws are already so suffocating, employers must use other excuses to fire employees, as “I can’t afford paying you and hundreds of others the minimum wage” is not enough of an excuse.
Of course, workers who fought for the minimum wage increase feel they are being unfairly targeted. But the reality is that what’s missing is some basic understanding of economics, which would help them realize that simply increasing the minimum wage by decree does nothing but limit the labor market, hurting the unskilled and the poor more than any other groups.
So, apparently, the reason we don't see much more people getting fired due to a minimum wage increase is because some law is protecting them from that, as you can see from what i've highlighted in bold and underlined. Employers are being blocked from firing employees that they can no longer afford to keep paying, so they must find other ways to maintain their profit margins which is to reduce hours or raise prices.
So it isn't the minimum wage law, specifically, that is causing this problem; it's this law protecting workers from being fired because their employers can no longer afford to keep paying them the new minimum wage that was raised by the minimum wage law that's causing the problem.
If that's the case, then all that does is make the problem even worse.
Eventually some businesses will stop hiring new employees and start investing in automation, and then, regardless if the minimum wage increase causes this or not, a minimum wage increase certainly won't fix the problem, and it will be pointless to raise the minimum wage by then, since those people won't have a job anyways, and neither will new young people entering the job market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Athias
@ebuc
@Nemiroff
I just thought of a solution that I believe the people who are both pro-minimum wage, and anti-minimum wage, would like.
We will do what drafterman wants, which is to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs of living, but, we will also make it so that employees can sign a legal waiver (which can be renewable) to temporarily waive their right to be paid that minimum, and legally allow employers to pay them, specifically, an amount lower than the minimum wage if the employer chooses to do so. That way, employees can still be paid a living/survivable wage if they want/need the extra money, while we also ensure that nobody accidentally gets priced out of the market who still wants to keep their job.
Does that seem like a fair compromise?
Better yet, we will keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs/needs, but we will also give employees the option to donate a certain amount of non-taxable money that they get, in their paycheck, back into the business, which improves it, and would also guarantee that people who keep their jobs are not priced out, while also allowing those people who need that extra money to benefit off of it and put it towards savings, emergencies, and other various costs.
That too seems like a viable option. After all, drafterman did say that "If you want to have less money you can always donate it or throw it away."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
the ecology does not charge humans for their existence
Humans have to give up one thing or another to maintain their existence though, whether it's money, time, or labor.
Sure the mother may not charge the baby for her milk, but eventually the baby will grow up and have to fend for itself, and it will need time, money, and/or labor to do so.
Ecologies still require maintenance, and in our society, you need labor (people to produce goods/services), time (to produce goods/services), and whatever you're willing to trade for those goods/services, which would in this case be money.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think boys "are being discriminated" against, but I do agree with Athias that the American education system is broken to a certain extent. Most of what we learn in school are things that will very rarely (if ever) be useful/applicable in our lives. Most of what will be useful/applicable in our lives are not taught in schools.
Here are a few examples of just some of the useless information that people learn in middle/high school:
7th grade:
8th grade:
9th grade:
10th grade:
11th grade:
So from 7th grade all the way to 11th grade, they teach you all sorts of useless stuff that will never help you later on, most of which you will end up forgetting anyways.
I mean, seriously! Who's gonna remember that In the late 600s Muslim armies began
launching raids into India. Some Muslims
tried to take over Indian kingdoms. Turkish
Muslims, for example, established a powerful kingdom at Delhi in northern India. In
the 1500s a new group of Muslim invaders
swept into the subcontinent. Led by the
great warrior Babur (BAH-boohr), they conquered much of India. In 1526 Babur established the Mughal (MOO-guhl) Empire.
Babur’s grandson, Akbar, was one
of India’s greatest rulers. Under Akbar’s
rule, trade flourished. Demand for Indian
goods like spices and tea grew. The Mughal
Empire grew rich from trade.
Akbar and other Mughal rulers also
promoted culture. Although the Mughals
were Muslim, most Indians continued to
practice Hinduism. Akbar’s policy of religious tolerance, or acceptance, encouraged
peace throughout his empire. Architecture
also thrived in the Mughal Empire. One of
India’s most spectacular buildings, the Taj
Mahal, was built during Mughal rule.
This, I copied and pasted straight from a 7th grade textbook (in italics), and this is just a very small sample of the useless stuff that they teach 7th graders. Nothing that they can use in their lives. Just a bunch of useless information... and they're often tested on this too, and do not graduate unless they fully understand this useless information that they will never use nor remember later on.
We shouldn't be wasting time teachings kids stuff from over 700 years ago, but the education system does that, and so do colleges, as well as private schools. All these history textbooks need to be updated to include only the important stuff that people can easily remember and utilize in their lives for years to come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Shouldn't all staff have the little red/orange crown symbol above their usernames? You don't have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Well, Speedrace must have found all that swearing offensive and drew the line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If you allow people to use whatever bathroom they choose, that could create problems. Guys could go into the girls' bathroom and do all sorts of things.
A unisex bathroom allows people to do just that; go into a bathroom and harass the opposite sex.
Created:
Posted in:
One of South Park's episodes is band in China, which is banned in China, cause they tried to start a band in China.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't smoke.
I just dug up this old thread because I found it interesting.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Like what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
@ResurgetExFavilla
@Dynasty
@HistoryBuff
@Reece101
I believe this article talks about Centrism in more detail.
Basically, it's saying that Centrism is when you have a combination of both left-wing and right-wing views.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Isn't the purpise of a one/two child policy to ensure that the population doesn't get out of control?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
We shouldn't have it if it's doing more harm than good.
It should not be forced upon everyone either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
People are homeless for a variety of reasons many of which having absolutely nothing to do with money
And yet you want the minimum wage to be raised which will make it even harder for them to get back into jobs and start earning money.
Also, homelessness does have a lot to do with money. Homelessness happens when people don't have the money to pay for a place to live, and they can't find someone who is both willing and able to take them in.
those that involve things like unaffordable housing which increasing minimwage wage most certainly would help.
These are people who don't have jobs to begin with. Minimum wage increases only help those who already have jobs, whose employers are both willing and able to pay them that extra money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
There are still people today that are homeless and cannot find work. There are still people today that could use the work experience and the few dollars.
What's a minimum wage increase supposed to do for these people? The people who need the most help? Employers are not likely going to want to hire these homeless people, especially for such a high wage.
Homelessness is a problem, especially for places like California and Seattle. How many more homeless people will it take for this to become "a significant problem"?
Over the past few years, Seattle has become a dumping ground for millions of pounds of garbage, needles, feces, and biohazardous waste, largely emanating from the hundreds of homeless encampments that have sprouted across the city… Last year saw a 400 percent increase in HIV infections among mostly homeless addicts and prostitutes in the city’s northern corridor. Public-health officials are sounding the alarms about the return of diseases like typhus, tuberculosis, and trench fever.
How do people become homeless?
Top reasons people become homeless:
31% job loss
20% drugs or alcohol use
15% divorce or separation
13% an argument with a family member who asked them to leave
7% domestic violence
10% eviction
7% mental health
7% physical health or medical condition
12% incarceration
1% housing restrictions due to probation or parole
What could prevent homelessness?
When asked what would have prevented their homelessness, respondents reported:
34% employment assistance
31% rental assistance
28% drug or alcohol counseling
19% mental health services
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
My bad. Based on what you said, and how you said it, it looking like living costs were separate from savings costs.
Even if the current minimum wage was not enough to survive on without government assistance, who does raising the minimum wage help though? We have the employers, the people currently making minimum wage, the people making more than minimum wage, and people who have no job.
Raising the minimum wage hurts employers who already pay their employees the current minimum wage since they are now forced to give up more of their money so that employees can make more money, or risk going out of business.
It doesn't help those who already make more than the minimum wage.
It doesn't help those who have no job to begin with, such as homeless people, and those looking for work experience; it would only make it harder for those people to get jobs since employers would have to pay them all this extra money to hire them, and decide it isn't worth it.
This leaves us with the last group of people who the minimum wage affects: those already making the current minimum wage.
If the minimum wage gets raised, it will help them if employers are both willing and able to pay them that extra money, but hurt them if the employer is either unwilling or unable to pay them that extra money.
If we try a few of my other solutions, like cutting down on careless government spending so we have more money to help those earning minimum wage, it would help more people overall than raising the minimum wage would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I spent the past 10 days going round and round with Christen and when we even got a modicum of concession or agreement, he disappears. At least he was arguing from premises he actually accepted.
I "disappeared" because 1) Like you said, we were finally agreeing on somethings, even though I still prefer my solutions as opposed to your solutions, and 2) I didn't want to keep arguing forever.
A minimum wage that exactly equals the cost of living is necessarily insufficient because of the non-zero chance of emergency or extreme situations. If you have to miss work for any reason, you are automatically less than the cost of living.
Then where do we draw the line? How much higher does the minimum wage need to be so that people have extra money for emergencies? In other words, if the minimum wage was 17 dollars an hour because that's how much you needed to survive, then how many more pennies/nickels/dimes/quarters/dollars do we add to that so people have extra money for emergencies? Would the minimum wage have to be 17 dollars an hour for living costs, plus an additional 10 cents an hour for savings/emergencies, or 17 dollars for living costs plus 25 cents an hour for savings/emergencies? Exactly how much additional money per hour do we add onto the current minimum wage for savings and emergencies?
More importantly, what happens if your work hours get reduced so you still don't make that extra money even though minimum wages went up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It's not that I have "a problem with the word" it's that I think people should be professional, even when they disagree with each other. For the most part, people were not being professional in that thread.
If you still think Speedrace and I were trolling, I don't know what else to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@TheRealNihilist
Speedrace did say that everything I quoted contributed to it getting locked, so you two need to talk to him about anything you disagree with, not me.
Also I was worried that if I quoted every full comment instead of just the part with the bad words and stuff then my post would exceed the 5000 character limit, so I apologize if it looks like I was quoting things out on context.
And yes. The a-word is a bad word. I would get in trouble for saying that word as a kid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
@Vader
@TheRealNihilist
@Speedrace
@bmdrocks21
I looked through the "Thoughts on the bsh1 resignation" thread myself to see if I could find any personal attacks or threats.
While I do think that the moderators should have punished the individual people making the attacks/threats instead of locking the entire thread and punishing everyone, there were in fact several instances of swearing, bad words, person attacks, and at least 1 death threat, to begin with:
he's some scumbag through and through https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126183
That is clearly bullshit and you can see through it. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126316
Are you fucking serious or is this to make me feel bad? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126337
Bsh1 is a pedophile https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126364
right now you are blinded by defensive/protective passion for a minor you feel has been violated. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126369
Who gives a f*ck? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126487
Get help. You have early symptoms of schizophrenia can be medicated away. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126529
they can't dog-pile me just like what they did to bsh1 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126538
Please a conspiracy theorist telling me I am wrong. You need help. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126540
This also goes to show like in his long-ass thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126543
THE FUCK DID I SAY! I LITERALLY TOLD YOU WHO THE FUCK https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126642
You do not make sense https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126695
It's my thoughts. fuck u https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126729
And here is the death threat by Dr Franklin:
THE DDO ELITE MUST DIE, STARTING WITH BSH https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126793RM YOUR NEXT
I seriously don't fucking care. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126569
There is no mystery that bsh1 was a pawn https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/126866
Grudges are fucked up. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/127033
Yeah keep lifting my nigga. You need to make up for being ugly so you can lose your virginity. I'm actually pretty sexy and slay pussy so I am just lifting to fight aging. You're fighting looks and personality so your fight is much harder. Keep at it kid. One day you'll slay pussy like I do. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/127051
Oh so you're a clown clown. Good to know. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3010/post_links/127063
I'm not sure if it was these comments specifically that caused that thread to get locked, but some of these comments do seem like something that would compel a moderator to take action, especially the one with the n-word.
If Speedrace himself/herself could come and clarify which comments were the hate comments and threats that caused it to get locked, though, then that would clear up any confusion.
If the confusion isn't cleared up, then people will likely keep blaming each other for getting the thread locked (i.e. "it was person A saying B that got it locked!" .... "no it was person C saying D that got it locked!")
I also don't know what this whole issue with bsh1 making some "inappropriate" comment about somebody is all about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If we need the extra money literally right now, why are places waiting months/years before they bring the wages up? You have one area waiting until 2020, another area waiting until 2021, and other areas waiting until 2023 or 2025, and so on.
We also still haven't figured out why states are going for only $15 an hour, when you've already said we would need at least $16 an hour. We might even need far more than that, just to make sure people can have money to get themselves out of their situation.
There is a reason Donald Trump cut taxes on the wealthy, because it allows them to have more money to invest back into their businesses, hire more employees, and pay them higher wages. There is now less unemployment, and there are also less people on food stamps.
There are many different solutions to helping our poor citizens. Raising the minimum wage is a solution, but it isn't the only solution, and some solutions will take longer than others. It's taking time for these states to raise wages, but maybe it wouldn't take that much time to implement other faster solutions
States are obviously not raising the minimum wage right now, so in the mean time, we can look at different quick small solutions to improving the lives of those poor people, until they do raise the minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Earlier you said:
The best way to help these poor people is by figuring out why costs are rising so much and then figuring out how to bring costs back down, such as by increasing the supply of things.Sure. In the mean time, until we find the source of the problems and fix them, we should increase minimum wage.
I will agree that if the need for a higher minimum wage is eliminated, then it shouldn't be raised. But that need hasn't, in fact, been eliminated and implementation of those solutions would take time. Until we actually reach that state of affairs, raise the minimum wage.
I've already listed some areas like illinois that are going to wait until as late as 2025 to raise the minimum wage, at least 6 years from now (2019).
So I must ask: Why can't we work on implementing my solutions in the mean time? I'm sure we could find ways to address the rising cost within 6 years. One of my solutions was for the government to stop spending recklessly. That should be doable in 6 years before the minimum wage goes up, right? Shouldn't building a few more housing units and fixing our education system also be doable within that time, way before the minimum wage increase becomes necessary?
Wouldn't it be great if we fixed this problem within 6 years, before the minimum wage has to go up again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
all families need a higher minimum wage, regardless of cost of living.
Do all families need a higher federal minimum wage, a higher state minimum wage, or both?
Also, if we're going to be having minimum wages, then they have to be based on costs of living.
These are issues all businesses have to tackle all of the time that has nothing to do with minimum wage itself.
It does have something to do with minimum wage. Since not all businesses make the same profits, not all businesses will be able to afford to pay the same amount to employees.
Not all businesses can afford to pay a minimum wage of $15 or $16 an hour without reducing costs or raising prices.
Like you said, there are many struggles that businesses have to face, so why give them more struggles of having to find a way to pay their employees more, on top of the struggles that they already have? Why make things harder for them than they already are?
there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem with businesses employing people.
Is there a problem with businesses raising prices of goods or reducing hours, though?
They can cut hours in half right now and double their profits!
They would then risk losing potentially valuable employees, since those employees could quit that job and find another business to work with that pays them a better wage.
People usually favor the job that pays more, and if someone is a valuable employee, the business would pay them a good amount, so that they wouldn't want to quit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I didn't make that up. It's basic math calculations.
Families with higher costs of living need higher wages than families with lower costs of living.
Families with lower costs of living do not need higher wages.
Not every business makes the exact same profits, and not every business is the exact same size.
Because of this, not every business will be able to afford to pay higher and higher wages, unless they find a way to increase their profits.
Where would this extra money come from?
They could reduce employee hours, raise prices of their goods, or fire employees outright, and invest in automation.
If someone works for me, they make 12 dollars an hour, they are working 2 hours a day, they are making 24 dollars a day. If the minimum wage is raised to 24 dollars an hour, I could simply reduce their hours to 1, so they're still making 24 dollars a day.
If the minimum wage, whatever that is, gets doubled, businesses can simply cut the hours in half to avoid having to pay more. If the minimum wage, whatever that currently is, gets multiplied by 1.5, businesses can divide the hours by 1.5 to avoid having to pay more. If you multiply the minimum wage by any number greater than 1, businesses can divide the hours by that same number so they are paying the same amount daily.
Here's a formula for this: ((A/B))*(C*B)) = D
A is the number of work hours, C is the current minimum wage B is whatever you multiply the minimum wage by, and D is how much money the worker makes, each day he/she works.
In this formula, D will always remain the same, regardless of what A and C are.
Basic math calculations can't be "made up".
If someone works for me, and I pay them 14 dollars an hour, and that's the minimum wage, and it gets raised to 16, and there's a robot than I can invest 15 dollars in to do that labor, I can fire that person and invest in the robot, so I save at least 1 dollar. 16 - 15 = 1.
It's basic math calculations. Not made up. Any business that can invest in automation that is cheaper than what the would have to pay an employee will save money by investing in that automation.
If I run a businesses that sells items, and the price of the item is 1 dollar, and my employee sells 7 items a day to make 7 dollars, and the minimum wage is 3 dollars, I can pay my employee 3 dollars, while my profit margin is 4 dollars. If the wage is raised to any number that is higher than my profit margin, I would have to raise the price of the item, to maintain a profit margin, or I go out of business.
It's basic deductive reasoning, which, again, is not made up.
If it is all made up... if raising wages doesn't lead to any of these possible outcomes... then why stop at $15 dollars? Why not raise it to $150 and make everyone richer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
We raise the minimum wage so they don't need the supplementary assistance.
If I'm in a business whose profits are so razor thin I paying my employees as much as I can then I've designed my business poorly. I'm likely on the verge of collapse anyway.
While owners are closely examining the effects of the minimum wage increases on small businesses, they have important factors to consider beyond the quick math of how much more they have to pay their hourly employees.
For one thing, the many small businesses that employ a slim, primarily hourly staff will see impacts on margins and cash flow from the shifts in minimum wage requirements. And those who forecast a direct hit on their bottom line will wonder if they should make any changes to make up for it.
Tara Oxley, who owns two businesses in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn—Eugene & Co, a farm-to-table restaurant; and Chicky’s General Store, a specialty grocery—is among those feeling a squeeze. She has seven employees at the store and 16 at the restaurant, including 10 bartenders and servers who received the statewide increase of $1.15 per hour to $8.65 for tipped workers.
After tips, she says, they make well over minimum wage, as do her other employees. But the wage increase is still a concern for Oxley as she evaluates her financials.
“Maybe some other businesses can pass it on to the customer and not affect their bottom line, and it might help them with retention,” she says. But as a small restaurant and small shop owner, Oxley says she already works unpaid shifts herself so she can make payroll.
“I find myself extremely lucky because I am fortunate enough to have an extraordinary group of people that work with me,” she says. “I consider them family, so if they need something they do not hesitate to ask. We figure it out together. I would hate to lose any of these members of my family because I could not afford to pay as many employees.”
After tips, she says, they make well over minimum wage, as do her other employees. But the wage increase is still a concern for Oxley as she evaluates her financials.
“Maybe some other businesses can pass it on to the customer and not affect their bottom line, and it might help them with retention,” she says. But as a small restaurant and small shop owner, Oxley says she already works unpaid shifts herself so she can make payroll.
“I find myself extremely lucky because I am fortunate enough to have an extraordinary group of people that work with me,” she says. “I consider them family, so if they need something they do not hesitate to ask. We figure it out together. I would hate to lose any of these members of my family because I could not afford to pay as many employees.”
How do you know that these many small businesses with razor thin profit margins designed their business poorly? How do you know that they would have been "on the verge of collapse anyway"?
Why can't I argue that it's the poor people themselves who made the poor decision to depend on low paying entry-level jobs in the first place, and make poor life choices such as having kids?
You already admitted that not everyone will agree on what the correct minimum wage is, and said we only need 50% + 1 to agree on it. What if 25% agrees there should be no minimum wage, another 25% agrees it should be 7.25, another 25% agrees it should be 20 dollars, and the other 25% agrees it should be 100 dollars?
How do we know which of those 25%'s know the correct minimum wage, and why blame the businesses even those they're not the ones setting the minimum wage, the government is.
If we don't raise minimum wage an asteroid will hit the Earth and obliterate everyone.
How long do we have, to raise the minimum wage, until we're hit by this thing? Also, when you say "we," are you referring to all of the states, a few states, or the whole world?
California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are all set to raise their minimum wages to $15.00 per hour by January 1, 2023 for California and Massachusetts and by 2025 for Illinois.[77][78] Colorado is set to raise its minimum wage from $9.30 per hour to $12 per hour by January 1, 2020, rising $0.90 per year.
Some areas are going to wait until 2025 to raise the minimum wage. Do they have to raise it sooner to avoid the asteroid? How much time do we have before the asteroid hits to make a decision?
How much do we raise the minimum wage by? A penny? A nickel? Also, how often do we need to keep raising the minimum wage? Can we raise it once and never have to do it again, or do we have to keep raising it every 20 years so the asteroid leaves us alone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The minimum wage isn't livable. It requires supplementary assistance.
Do we raise the minimum wage and get rid of the supplementary assistance, or do we get rid of the minimum wage and raise the supplementary assistance?
It doesn't make sense to have both.
Why raise the minimum wage and risk hurting those businesses with already-thin profit margins? They will have to fire employees, reduce hours, and/or raise costs. If those employees lose their jobs, they will be worse off, since they not cannot work and have to depend on others even more.You made this up.
Those people won't be able to earn money to afford anything, their work won't be worth at least the minimum wage, it will be illegal for anyone to hire them, and they will be screwed.Those who still manage to keep their jobs would have their hours reduced or prices raised, in order for the business to stay in profit.If too many people get fired, or if prices are raised too much, the entire business could go out of business.You made this up.
Those aren't made up. Imagine that you run a business, your profit margins are razor thin, you already pay your employees as much as you can.
Then the government decides that they need more money instead of you.
What do you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
not everyone agrees on what the "right" amount is.
How can the government set the correct minimum wage when nobody can agree what the correct minimum wage is? How do they know if they're setting the correct minimum wage? How can we trust that they know what they're doing if nobody can agree on it?
I provided my numbers to show why the minimum wage isn't livable. And that didn't include Internet connection or a phone plan.
You say this, but then say:
when you fail to raise minimum wage you're keeping them reliant on the government anyway, from your own link:"People earning minimum wage are qualified for free health insurance, food stamps, free lunch at school for kids, earned income credit, and multiple other benefits."
So there's no need to raise the minimum wage then! The minimum wage is already enough to afford people housing, clothing, and transportation, while the government covers food and health costs. The minimum wage already is "livable," public libraries exist, and public education is free until 12th grade, so even without a phone, you could still get a library card, use their library computers, and borrow books to read and learn valuable things that can help you improve your situation.
Is there something else missing that isn't covered by the minimum wage nor the government?
Why raise the minimum wage and risk hurting those businesses with already-thin profit margins? They will have to fire employees, reduce hours, and/or raise costs. If those employees lose their jobs, they will be worse off, since they not cannot work and have to depend on others even more. Many businesses are even replacing workers with automation/robots.
Those people won't be able to earn money to afford anything, their work won't be worth at least the minimum wage, it will be illegal for anyone to hire them, and they will be screwed.
Those who still manage to keep their jobs would have their hours reduced or prices raised, in order for the business to stay in profit.
If too many people get fired, or if prices are raised too much, the entire business could go out of business.
What does a minimum wage increase do for all those homeless people in America? They already can't get jobs since they won't get hired. Many of them are drug addicts too. https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-homeless-crisis-historic-cemetery-overrun-with-drugs-and-prostitution-amid-worsening-problem.amp
You can't say "oh, if only they had higher wages"
Increasing the minimum wage only covers up the problem. It doesn't fix it. We've been increasing wages to "keep up with costs of living" for decades, and we have to try something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Those numbers were cherry picked from a place reported as having a very low cost of living. Everywhere else, it's much higher.For the US, studies put that around $16/hr.No, currently minimum wage jobs aren't survivable. That's the point.
$16? So why are people advocating for $15 an hour then, and not 16?
Also, if higher minimum wages are supposed to help those struggling, why are governments waiting until 2030 to raise that wage? https://www.michamber.com/michigan-chamber-supports-senate-changes-minimum-wage-law
minimum wage increases should implemented to keep it consistent with the cost of living.
Cost of living for who? The 1 guy who lives by himself, buys only cheap stuff, saves every possible penny, lives in the cheapest apartment possible, or the family with 4 kids who needs money for a nice car, nice clothes, money to pay for those kids' college tuition, and money to live in a higher quality apartment?
Like I said, not everyone needs the exact same amount of money to survive, and "cost of living" can vary from family to family. There is no such thing as being "consistent with the cost of living" unless you either 1) make the minimum wage match the cost of living of the family with the highest cost of living, or 2) calculate the cost of living for every family in the state/country and make the minimum wage the average cost of living for all of them.
It isn't.
But do you really need that much money to learn the necessary skills to get a better job? With a cheap smartphone, with internet/youtube, you can learn a wide variety of different skills for a better paying job. You don't necessarily need to go to an expensive college for all that.
the cost of living has continually increased.
Which I've already given some solutions to, in post #86 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/529/post_links/123734
Created:
Posted in:
Higher minimum wages haven't increased unemployment.
Even if raising the minimum wage does not lead to job loss, doesn't it lead to employers reducing hours or raising prices to transfer the extra cost to the consumer?
Also, if raising the minimum wage to $15 does not increase unemployment, then why stop at $15? Why not raise the minimum wage to a thousand dollars an hour and bring everyone out of poverty?
until we find the source of the problems and fix them, we should increase minimum wage.
I've already identified and explained some of the sources of these problems with Nemiroff.
We need to build more affordable housing, especially in places like California, which will increase the supply and lower the costs of rents.
We need to get rid of as many of the illegal aliens in this country as we can so we can stop wasting tax dollars on them, and instead put that money towards helping our poor citizens. http://archive.fo/k7kBy
We need to improve our education system so we don't have so many people graduating high school and/or college, not knowing any valuable life skills that can help them get into a good paying job. http://archive.fo/XgA9e
We also need to do something about the government's out-of-control spending, and put more of that money towards helping poor people improve their situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LYm2fIEeo
What ludicrous regulations? California is not the only place with an affordabe housing shortage, every major city has it. And i dont think regulations that keep contruction materials from falling on pedestrians or keep people from hammering 24 hours a day for several years when others live nearby as well is wrong.
Some people on Reddit were talking about "a famous saga in San Francisco where a laundromat owner wants to replace the laundromat with an apartment building. The government has blocked the development at every step of the process, including trying to declare the laundromat a historic structure, enforcing a shadow study and then blocking development because a new building would cast a shadow." https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/b1uxfi/what_are_the_causes_of_californias_housing/eiogwvy/
They also talked about "how insane California regulations were, some guy detailed the process in a shipping container home video. Cost more to acquire the permits than the entire build did." https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/b3uwrv/if_you_were_ever_wondering_how_insane_california/
This article also talks about how most of California is "zoned to limit building height to 40 feet." https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-density-thought-experiment-2014-5
Also, this is what 40 feet looks like compared to the size of humans. https://archive.fo/jfrfe/2963ea1357c84cae0bf381b8040afcb142c1a3f2.gif
Those are just a few examples some of California's "ludicrous regulations".
It's one thing to regulate falling construction materials and excessive hammering noise, but how do you justify a useless shadow study, a so-called historic structure, making costs to acquire all these permits more than the building itself, and limiting building height to the size of a dinosaur, for no reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Nemiroff
nothing is stopping you from working less than minimum wage, just employers from paying you less than minimum wage. If you want to have less money you can always donate it or throw it away.
"Just employers from paying" me less than the minimum wage?
Does that mean I can have my employer pay me the minimum wage while I "donate" some of what I'm paid back to my employer in order to circumvent the arbitrary minimum wage law?
You said the minimum wage should be survivable. Are you retracting that claim?
You said "At $7.25, it'll take you 170 hours to match" costs for living expenses, and that, after paying for all living expenses like food, clothing, and rent, you would "get 173 - 170 = 30 * $7.25 = $21.75. A whopping $21.75 left over."
That means that the minimum wage is already "survivable" and that it does not need to be raised, since that's all it needs to be. Minimum and Survivable. Except, you want it to be more "survivable" since $21.75 isn't "survivable" enough? How much more "survivable" does the minimum wage have to be?
Sure minimum wage jobs can be survivable and be enough to allow people to afford to save and have health insurance, but they should also be good for young people to start gaining work experience. If you raise it to try and make it "more survivable," then it will be harder for young people to work for low pay and get work experience to get to a better job where they can get paid a much better wage.
That's another problem with minimum wage increases. They discourage/disincentivize people from working harder or looking for better jobs that pay more. If my current minimum wage is 10 dollars an hour, and I want to be paid 20 dollars an hour, I could see if I could work harder to earn more money, or see if there are better jobs available that pay more, but if the minimum wage gets raised to 20 dollars an hour, then there's no reason for me to work harder or find a better job since I'm already getting paid more money not because I worked harder or found a better job, but because the government randomly decided that I should be paid more, and that's assuming that I don't lose my job, have my hours reduced, or have prices raised to compensate for the wage increase.
Minimum wage increases should reward people for working harder and making smarter life choices, as well as encourage them to use that extra money to save up, not promote laziness.
When you raise wages because people worked harder, saved up every possible penny, or made smarter life choices, that encourages them to keep doing those things. When you raise wages because the government said so, that encourages them to rely on the government to keep saying so.
It's also insulting to those that did work harder, and to those that demonstrated that they deserve to be paid 20 dollars instead of 10. They worked hard for their wage increase, while those that were lazy and/or making poor life choices still get a wage increase.
What if I'm not currently concerned with survival, and only concerned with gaining work experience?Then you die.
I guess I should have phrased that question better.
Let's say I'm in high school or college part-time, going to enter the workforce pretty soon after I graduate, and I want to start gaining work experience early on, and make a little money while I'm at it. I still have my family to take care of me, but pretty soon, I'm gonna have to take care of myself.
Why does the government have to make it illegal for me to gain work experience, earn a few dollars, and be able to use that experience and money to get into a good job that pays me a decent living wage later on, simply because the amount that my employer and I agree to be paid is not equal to or greater than the random arbitrary amount that the government established?
if the government didn't do that, they wouldn't pay you enough to be able to get a better job.
What if $7.25 an hour is all I need to be able to get a better job, and the government decides to raise it anyway because someone else needs more money since they made the poor decision to have kids they couldn't afford, putting me at risk of losing my job, having my hours reduced, or having prices go up?
Also, if the whole purpose behind raising the minimum wage is so that people can get a better job, why can't the government bring the minimum wage back down after people get better jobs? Why does the government have to keep increasing it constantly?
Not only that, but, even if your minimum wage does go up so you can now afford savings and a higher education to get a better job, wouldn't other's also raise prices too, so you now still cannot afford said savings and higher education? If I am left with $21.75 after paying all my expenses, and then I get a wage increase so that I am left with $43.50, wouldn't the price of other things also go up to compensate for the wage increase, so I still wouldn't be able to save much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What if I want to work for someone for less than the minimum wage? What if I agree with the employer to work for a lower price just to get some work experience and build up my resume?
Why does the government have to step in and make it illegal for me to acquire work experience and build up my resume?
The current minimum wage is not enough to survive off of
Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant for young adults to get work experience and build up their resumes, as opposed to surviving off of?
Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant to serve as a stepping stone to a much better, much higher paying job?
Why should I be blocked from working someplace and gaining work experience simply because someone else can't "survive" off of it?
What if I'm not currently concerned with survival, and only concerned with gaining work experience?
let alone attempt to work your way to a better job.
Why does the government have to force my employer to pay me an arbitrary minimum wage for me to gain work experience to get a better job? Couldn't I work for whatever the employer and I agree to, and still gain work experience?
Another major problem with minimum wages you should know about is that minimum wages needed to survive can vary from person to person, and the governments that set these minimum wages often don't take that into account.
Let's say I live by myself, working for 7.25 an hour, and I choose to delay myself gratification, and purchase the cheapest things, so I can save every possible dollar to achieve a better life later on.
Now let's say my next door neighbor makes the poor decision to have some kids that they can't afford to raise.
If the government raises the minimum wage, they could have that extra money to raise their kids, but I could lose my job if my employer can't afford to pay me that much, so I would suffer.
People with children are going to need a higher minimum wage than those without, so you can't have a one-size-fits-all minimum wage that works for everyone.
Why should I suffer because of their poor choices? Most importantly, what if they end up losing their job too, since their employer also cannot afford to pay them the minimum wage? Now we both suffer, and for what? Minimum wage that has not helped either of us?
The best way to help these poor people is by figuring out why costs are rising so much and then figuring out how to bring costs back down, such as by increasing the supply of things.
Why put people at risk of losing their jobs due to an unafforable wage increase, when you can address the root of the problem, which is the rising prices, and low supply of things like housing units?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Isn't the whole point of a minimum wage to give you the bare minimum amount of money needed to survive? Isn't that why it's called the minimum wage in the first place?
So it makes sense that you are not left with much to invest in health care, enemergencies, amenities, savings, or schooling, after paying for the bare minimum amount to survive, doesn't it? It makes sense to find better work or work more hours if you want more in return, right?
Then if you want to just give out more money per hour so that people can afford themselves all of these extra things, why bother calling it the minimum wage? Why not start calling it the comfortable wage or something, where you get enough to live very comfortably instead of getting enough to afford the bare minimum amount of needs to survive.
It seems like people are trying to twist the whole definition of a minimum wage now, to mean something it's not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What you've failed to account for is the fact that inflation happens anyway, and prices are rising anyway
So let's address why inflation is rising anyway, and why prices are rising away, as opposed to simply raising wages to hurt businesses that cannot afford to pay it.
Is it rising because the government is printing money? If so, then the government should stop printing money.
Is it rising because the government keeps borrowing money recklessly and increasing it's national debt? If so, then that should be addressed, not the minimum wage.
Is it rising because the demand for things like housing/rood increases while supply stays the game? If so, then let's figure out how that supply can be increased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Nemiroff
You say gun control is failing everywhere
Gun control does not fail everywhere, sure, but you have to remember that it does not succeed everywhere either. If Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia can ban guns and it works for them, that's fine, but if our states are banning guns and it isn't working, we have to try something else. We can't keep doing the same useless thing over and over and expect a different result.
We have to stop focusing so much on excessive "gun control," and start focusing on why people are forming/joining gangs, and dealing drugs, in the first place. It could be because of poverty. It could be because they don't see any other option available to them besides joining a gang to survive. It could be because of homelessness. It could be because children are growing up with only 1 parent. It could be because of poor education. It could be because of poor healthcare. It could be because of some other horrible influence that we don't know about.
We're focusing only on gun control, and not on drug control, gang control, homelessness control, poverty control, wage control, illegal immigration control, unemployment control, depression control, or something different that could help us achieve better results.
How about other cities like new york with record low crime rates
New York is fairly strict on guns, yes, but is that the only reason crime is so low, or could it also be because our community is better, our culture is better, our education is better, our people are more mature, our government is better, our police force is better, our health care is better, or that our homelessness is not as bad?
the abundance of guns smuggled from loose gun law states
That's strange.
If the issue is guns brought in from those loose gun law states, then how come those loose gun law states themselves don't have high crime, like the strict gun law states smuggling the guns do?
Also, if those loose gun law states do not have high crime, why would they need to tack on extra "gun control" because of what's happening in a different state.
Plus, even if indiana, a state close to chicago, were to pump out more strict "gun control" like chicago did, wouldn't that lead to a chain of events where criminals simply go to a different place to get guns, forcing that place to heavily regulate guns, resulting in criminals just going to someplace like Mexico to get a gun, and then to a different place after that when Mexico starts regulating guns? Why should all these other places with low crime rates start pumping out gun control laws too, simply because of chicago? Why should everyone be punished because of the actions of criminals in a different state, instead of addressing that state with the high crime?
Prices will go down, but people are already struggling with just rent (which is mostly based of land value, not labor, and will not fall).
Rents are so high in the first place because of low supply and high demand. When you increase the supply (build more housing units) the price can go down. I've explained how this happens in California, where there are ridiculous restrictions/regulations that make it hard to build more housing units.
Cheap as the prices of goods may become, who are you selling it to?
To whoever wishes to buy them.
Most people are employed, and rising wages havent stopped that.
Raising the minimum wage won't hurt those who can afford to pay the new wage, but it hurts those who cannot afford to pay the new wage, since they would have to reduce hours, raise prices to transfer the cost to the consumer, or fire employees.
lowering taxes didnt create any jobs
Lowing taxes allows people to have more money to invest back into their business and do things like hire more employees. http://archive.fo/wCPSM
raising minimum wage has never cost jobs
Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would increase the pay of at least 17 million people, but also put 1.3 million Americans out of work, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office
drafterman
What you've failed to account for is the fact that inflation happens anyway, and prices are rising anyway
So let's address why inflation is rising anyway, and why prices are rising away, as opposed to simply raising wages to hurt businesses that cannot afford to pay it.
Is it rising because the government is printing money? If so, then the government should stop printing money.
Is it rising because the government keeps borrowing money recklessly and increase it's national debt? If so, then that should be addressed, not the minimum wage.
Is it rising because the demand for things like housing/rood increases while supply stays the game? If so, then let's figure out how that supply can be increased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
What will people do if their wages drop?
They should figure out why their wages are dropping? Is it because they're doing something wrong? Is it because they are doing something that isn't making them much money in the first place?
if working a full time job, 40hrs a week, all month doesn't cover the cheapest rent anywhere near work, why bother going to work at all? If your situation is hopeless, why kill yourself trying?
If "working a full time job, 40hrs a week, all month," and then the minimum wage goes up to the point where your boss can't afford to keep paying you, you'll lose your job or have your hours reduced, making your problem worse since you now can't pay for anything.
Shouldn't work be worthwhile, rather then worthless?
Depends on what kind of "work" we're talking about. Working on something like a mud pie that very few people will want does not automatically make your work worthwhile. https://web.archive.org/web/20191021021901/https://www.fff.org/2018/05/14/marxs-fallacious-exploitation-theory/
What makes your work worthwhile is when you work on something valuable that you can make decent money from.
Jobs like McDonalds were meant for teenagers to get work experience and build up there resumes and whatnot, not for people to work full time for 40 hours a week and depend on for minimum wages. Too many people are depending on entry-level jobs as their only source of income. If you become dependent on those entry-level jobs as your main source of income and now you are struggling to pay for all your expenses, that's your fault/problem. Those kinds of jobs were not meant for people to live off of, only for work experience and resume-building.
How can you save when you live paycheck to paycheck?
It's called minimum wage for a reason. It's meant to be a wage that gives you with the bare minimum amount to survive. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, and arbitrary laws and/or wage hikes won't really change that. What will change that is if you find a way to make more than the minimum wage so you can save. My problem is when people are trying to turn the minimum wage into a decent wage or an average wage like some of the wealthier workers by raising it every year.
tell me which spendings are excessive, and how much that saving will do?
There are youtube videos talking about the various things that people waste their money on.
Although it would be easier for me to actually pinpoint what the excessive spendings may be if you listed all of the things that said poor person was spending their money on.
We should make work worthwhile.
You don't "make work worthwhile". You DO some work that's worthwhile.
People these days complain about how they aren't making much money, even though they chose to pursue a career in stupid Lesbian Dance Theory and/or work a job that was meant for work experience and not for paying rent/mortgage every month.
Otherwise crime and homelessness will be the result
Crime is happening so much because of the ridiculously strict gun laws that keep good people from acquiring guns to stop the bad guys with guns. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/chicago-the-poster-child-for-failed-gun-control/#comment-4546854882
The cities with strict gun control laws are the most violent and have the most deaths in the country. Arming good, upstanding citizens that respect the law is how you stop criminals that defy the law. Criminals do not care about laws, so citizens need to protect themselves.
Homelessness is happening so much because of the ridiculous housing restrictions that prevent more housing from being constructed to get homeless people of the streets and house them. https://web.archive.org/web/20191021025651/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-18/trump-housing-homeless-ben-carson-california-deregulation
President Trump’s big idea for fixing California’s homelessness crisis should look familiar to many prominent Democrats: Eliminate layers of regulation to make it easier and cheaper to build more housing.
Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors released a report blaming “decades of misguided and faulty policies” for putting too many restrictions on development and causing home prices to rise to unaffordable levels.
Take away minimum wage and people will likely riot.
Take away minimum wage and prices will likely go down, since employers no longer have to charge as much money for their goods to pay their employees. It's one of the reasons why stores like Walmart have many of their products sold at cheap prices.
Take away minimum wage and more people will likely be able to get hired, reducing the unemployment.
the problem can be solved easily with legislation and have the same end result
We've been increasing the minimum wage for decades, and people today are still homeless and/or poor. We can't just keep doing the same thing that isn't working over and over and expect a different result.
fair wages will be set one way or another
What good is setting a "fair wage" if it leads to you losing your job because your employer can't afford to pay you the new increased wage, because that's what happens, a lot?
Created: