I don't really understand the Dems' "need," for lack of a better word, for a national $15 min wage.

[Markle]

I went shoe shopping with the wife. I'm checking out the tennis shoes. All made in Vietnam, Indonesia and China. Priced from $50-$90. There is NO WAY we couldn't manufacture shoes here paying people $15 an hour and not do it profitably at those prices.

If it could be done profitably to sell your sneakers at $50-$90 a pair. Someone would be doing so and making that profit.

If you have a business plan, gather your friends together and offer them an opportunity to get in on the ground floor with you and launch just such a company. You'll be RICH!

Or, are you lying again!

 

[Andylusion]

That's fine. When all the production leaves and people far exceed jobs, as I said, we will pay people to not work.

You don't think we won't protect ourselves with Tariffs before that happens? Which... We could do RIGHT NOW to help the dollar stay strong and give the people more buying power... Why do you choose the worst option to do?

Tariffs have never protected us. It didn't in the 1930s, and it won't today.

Protectionism will actually drive out manufacturing even more.

The irony is, China is the clearest example of that playing out.

Before the 1978 liberalization, and the Free Trade Zones, no one really had anything manufactured in China. Why? Because it cost to much.

The free-trade zones in China, is what caused the economic boom, along with economic liberalization.

Remember, there are 330 Million people in the US. There are 8 Billion people world wide. So if you have $500 Million dollars to build a manufacturing plant, where are you going to build that plant? In the US, which due to protectionism will only be able to market to the US?

Or would you build where you can serve the other 7.5 Billion people in the world, in a free trade zone?

Apple, Ford, and numerous other large companies, all make more money outside the US, than they do inside the US.

If you put in trade barriers to prevent free trade, companies are going to invest outside the US, rather than inside. There are far more customers, and more money, to be made on the world market, than on the US market. If you make protectionism an "us or them", it's going to be them, not us.

 

[Andylusion]

You say it's worse, I say it isn't,

I explained what would happen and why... You say that wouldn't be worse. We disagree. Again... if you give me an "oh shit moment" I didn't think of that. I'll thank you.

Minimum wages have been raised ever since there has been one. You are arguing that the working poor should fall further and further behind.

If companies still want to offshore and we want to do nothing about that, I'll be voting for those who promise a guaranteed income.



(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. central bank should not prematurely withdraw pandemic support for the U.S. economy just because some people are getting rich in the stock market, said San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Mary Daly.

“We’re building this bridge, which is barely having many communities hang on, and the stock market is running pretty good and many people who already have money are getting more money,” she said Friday during a virtual discussion hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Fed’s Daly Pushes Back Against Pulling Policy Aid to Curb Stocks

But the working poor shouldn't get anything. Screw that.

Minimum wages have been raised ever since there has been one. You are arguing that the working poor should fall further and further behind.

No that is a stupid claim. Absolutely stupid.

What makes the working poor fall further behind, is you jacking up the cost of labor, so they end up unemployed, and can't find a job.

You are the one who wants the working poor to be out of work, and fall further behind.

Every single time they raise the minimum wage, people lose their jobs. No exception.

As long as people like you, do not force people out of jobs with your idiotic policies, people can advance up the income ladder.

No one anywhere wants people to stay poor.

The difference is, we believe the solution to being poor, and people moving themselves up the income ladder.

You believe that people are incapable of doing that, because you are smug arrogant jerks... so you think you need government to fix the lives of other people.

But that never works. What works, is people working their way up. Not sitting around waiting for your fake savior government, to somehow make a law saying your life is better.

Did that work for Greece? They had a minimum wage indexed to inflation. Unemployment got so bad, that they CUT the minimum wage, and what a shock.... unemployed fell, as employers were able to higher people. Crazy how that works.

Almost like we on the right wing have predicted that for almost a hundred years.

Circles. We have already covered this. When they are out of jobs you will pay them a living wage for not working.

First, we would have to tax people massive high taxes, in order to do that. So you are going to make everyone poor, so that people can sit at home not working?

This gets old........it's not about me. I'm simply stating what is going to happen.

That would be a disaster.

It's inevitable. There will be no other choice. You either pay people to survive or they steal from you to survive.

No... that's not true. In the 1990s, when they passed welfare reform under the GOP contract with America, they kicked millions of people off welfare and food stamps, dropping rolls by less than half.

They didn't go out and start stealing. They got jobs, and earned their keep.

Ahem......the jobs are leaving.

Only if you make them go with higher minimum wage. They certainly were not leaving before. Unemployment fell from 10% in 2010, to 3.8% in 2019. How do you explain that?

 

[Markle]

It's inevitable. There will be no other choice. You either pay people to survive or they steal from you to survive.

 

[Markle]

[In response to pknopp]

So perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, and that could very well be, and I apologize if that's the case.

However, what you appear to be saying, seems to be extremely contradictory.

You seem to be saying that raising the minimum wage would not cause jobs to leave the US.

Yet, I think it's a given that manufacturing has left the US.... correct? And I think we all agree one reason is because labor costs are cheaper elsewhere..... correct?

So how can you say that jacking up the cost of labor, will not result in job loss to other countries?

How can you admit it is cheaper to produce things outside the country, and this is why manufacturing has moved out of the country, and at the same time, claim that increasing the minimum wage won't cause job loss?

Good one! I know you're not expecting an answer because pknopp can only parrot what his far-left idols tell him to say and they don't have an answer for that one! Or many others!

 

[XponentialChaos]

It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.

Poverty Rates in the United States ranked.

List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dblack]

I think what bugs me most about minimum wage legislation isn't that it is delusional. It is delusional - it won't do the 'good' advocates imagine - but it's also a fundamental violation of individual rights. If two people want to trade with each other, whether it's labor in exchange for goods or whatever, the terms they agree to are no one else's business. That's basic privacy and self-determination. Unless the deal falls through and results in conflict, the government has no business getting involved.

 

[Asclepias]

Byrd Rule, politics threaten $15 per hour minimum wage

Democrats face a series of steep political and procedural challenges as they plot a path to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour using a budgetary process known as reconciliation that would sides…

thehill.com

I don't doubt or disagree with NYC or other urban areas, esp progressive ones, logically wanting the raise. Or the need of workers. But in rural states, min wage jobs sometimes just supplement rural life of raising and growing one's own food. It will kill jobs, because the people who buy retail goods are the same ones working the jobs. Employers will consolidate gas stations, small grocery's and maybe even Wal-Marts. It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.

" Ala and Miss and WV "

Those are all very poor conservative states so the odds are that they cant figure out their own state economies.

 

[Asclepias]

I think what bugs me most about minimum wage legislation isn't that it is delusional. It is delusional - it won't do the 'good' advocates imagine - but it's also a fundamental violation of individual rights. If two people want to trade with each other, whether it's labor in exchange for goods or whatever, the terms they agree to are no one else's business. That's basic privacy and self-determination. Unless the deal falls through and results in conflict, the government has no business getting involved.

" the terms they agree to are no one else's business. That's basic privacy and self-determination. "

False. Provably so. You cant enter into an illegal contract.

 

[Shelzin]

That's fine. When all the production leaves and people far exceed jobs, as I said, we will pay people to not work.

You don't think we won't protect ourselves with Tariffs before that happens? Which... We could do RIGHT NOW to help the dollar stay strong and give the people more buying power... Why do you choose the worst option to do?

Tariffs have never protected us. It didn't in the 1930s, and it won't today.

Protectionism will actually drive out manufacturing even more.

The irony is, China is the clearest example of that playing out.

Before the 1978 liberalization, and the Free Trade Zones, no one really had anything manufactured in China. Why? Because it cost to much.

The free-trade zones in China, is what caused the economic boom, along with economic liberalization.

Remember, there are 330 Million people in the US. There are 8 Billion people world wide. So if you have $500 Million dollars to build a manufacturing plant, where are you going to build that plant? In the US, which due to protectionism will only be able to market to the US?

Or would you build where you can serve the other 7.5 Billion people in the world, in a free trade zone?

Apple, Ford, and numerous other large companies, all make more money outside the US, than they do inside the US.

If you put in trade barriers to prevent free trade, companies are going to invest outside the US, rather than inside. There are far more customers, and more money, to be made on the world market, than on the US market. If you make protectionism an "us or them", it's going to be them, not us.

yeah, if you take anything to the extreme it's a bad thing. Thanks for that. o.0

 

[Shelzin]

It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.

Poverty Rates in the United States ranked.

View attachment 450501

List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state? Because again, 30k in California and 30K in Al, WV, and Miss are very different. I don't pay anywhere near a grand a month for housing... I find that absolutely insane.

Hell, we had a poster in this very thread that said 75k wasn't middle class. You damn skippy it's middle class here in Iowa. Very likely is in most states.

Hell, the link I get to show how that information was arrived at on the Wiki page for poverty levels:  Estimates are not comparable to other geographic levels due to methodology differences that may exist between different data sources.

Well... Damnit... What methodology did you use then ya stupid Wiki, stupid Census Bureau... It's almost like I'm watching the news. Gotta do it my damn self.

Edit: Poverty Thresholds

Poverty Thresholds for 2019 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years
Size of family unit		Related children under 18 years
Weighted
average	None	One	Two	Three	Four	Five	Six	Seven	Eight or more
thresholds
One person (unrelated individual):	13,011
Under age 65*.	13,300	13,300
Aged 65 and older*.	12,261	12,261
Two people:	16,521
Householder under age 65*.	17,196	17,120	17,622
Householder aged 65 and older*.	15,468	15,453	17,555
Three people*.	20,335	19,998	20,578	20,598
Four people*.	26,172	26,370	26,801	25,926	26,017
Five people*.	31,021	31,800	32,263	31,275	30,510	30,044
Six people*.	35,129	36,576	36,721	35,965	35,239	34,161	33,522
Seven people*.	40,016	42,085	42,348	41,442	40,811	39,635	38,262	36,757
Eight people*.	44,461	47,069	47,485	46,630	45,881	44,818	43,470	42,066	41,709
Nine people or more*.	52,875	56,621	56,895	56,139	55,503	54,460	53,025	51,727	51,406	49,426
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

My god... You damn near can't have a job to be considered in poverty.

Edit2: Actually... California has a minimum wage right now of 13 dollars an hour. With 2088 work hours in a year, that's 27,144... o.0

Edit3: Condoms... They need fuck'n condoms. Is that it?

 

[Andylusion]

It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.

Poverty Rates in the United States ranked.

View attachment 450501

List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You didn't make a point. Try again?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state? Because again, 30k in California and 30K in Al, WV, and Miss are very different. I don't pay anywhere near a grand a month for housing... I find that absolutely insane.

Hell, we had a poster in this very thread that said 75k wasn't middle class. You damn skippy it's middle class here in Iowa. Very likely is in most states.

Hell, the link I get to show how that information was arrived at on the Wiki page for poverty levels:  Estimates are not comparable to other geographic levels due to methodology differences that may exist between different data sources.

Well... Damnit... What methodology did you use then ya stupid Wiki, stupid Census Bureau... It's almost like I'm watching the news.

Yea. I thought of that too. I don’t have a good metric for that and I’m not sure how cost of living plays into that, if at all.

Thought it might be interesting. Maybe.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state?

This one might be a little more helpful. Actually, a lot more helpful.

Welfare Recipients by State 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[XponentialChaos]

You didn't make a point. Try again?

Their state economies don't appear to be going too well when they're leading in welfare rates.

 

[Shelzin]

I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state?

This one might be a little more helpful. Actually, a lot more helpful.

View attachment 450510

Welfare Recipients by State 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

That one is much better... yes.

lol

Now you certainly got somewhere.

Then again... If I had to be on welfare, I sure as hell don't want to be in a place that has a high cost of living. So... Not sure it means as much as I originally thought.

 

[Andylusion]

You didn't make a point. Try again?

Their state economies don't appear to be going too well when they're leading in welfare rates.

Just because you don't think they appear to be doing well, doesn't mean that you know better than they.

Have you dealt with any of the economic troubles in those states? No? Then why do you think you know better how to handle their problems?

This is the issue. Why do you think you know what policies would work best in a state you have never been in, have never worked in, have never I would wager researched the effects of the minimum wage in?

You posting graphs to information, that you have no idea why, or what has caused those numbers to be. You have no idea if the minimum wage would help, but you can post a graph of welfare recipients?

Did you even think about that? How is raising the minimum wage, going to help people who don't even have jobs?

Not even a logical position to have, and yet here you are implying that somehow you know better than the people who are living and working in those states, what is best for those states?

That's my issue, and that was the point of the previous poster. If the minimum wage harms jobs, then in a state with a higher percentage of people already on welfare, destroying what jobs they do have would be the worst possible move.

None of the posts you have made thus far, suggest that you have any idea what would fix the economies in those states.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Then again... If I had to be on welfare, I sure as hell don't want to be in a place that has a high cost of living.

I don't know. Seems too speculative to me.

Maybe people are flocking to these particular states because the cost of living is lower or maybe these states just have a comparatively large amount of people on food stamps due to poor economic planning. It could be both, but I would guess it's much more of the latter.

This chart is specifically dealing with food stamps, which I don't think varies too much and wouldn't be a huge cost-of-living variable. The big difference is housing and, to my understanding, there are other state programs that help provide assistance for that anyway.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Just because you don't think they appear to be doing well, doesn't mean that you know better than they.

Do you think it's good that they're leading in welfare rates? I don't.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And for the record, I’m not a big advocate of raising the minimum wage.

I don’t think it will fix the issue in the long run. Kind of seems like a short-term bandaid if that.