Quote: (01-18-2019 10:24 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  

Welfare is a kind of bribery, of course, so the rich should pay for it, and not taxes or bonds. The rich already pay bribes to government officials, so why shouldn't they pay to the poor? That at least would make Klassenkampf alive again.
The way it is made now pits everyone against everyone, since non-welfare taxpayers feel like being robbed by welfare recipients.

Welfare has nothing inherently wrong in itself, and seems to be around already a long time. What about potlatch? What about annona, free grain given to poor citizens of Rome and Constantinople by the emperor?

The term "Bread and circuses" come to mind. I believe those services especially in Ancient Rome eventually lead to the demise of Rome due to the expenses incurred on the State as the burden of dependency through subsidization grows.

If able bodied men will not work for their sustenance neither should they eat. Population growth must be tied to men who are able to depend on themselves for sustenance and earn their bread. Otherwise its going to be a ongoing net drain that will continuously grow.

The ever increasing migrants draining the welfare states in Europe are a good example of this problem.

As I stated. Even the Welfare that is presented in the Holy Book of Christianity involves non-disabled(even disabled if they are able to work) recipients gathering food at the minimum which is a form of work in itself.

Hence the instructions that farmers leave the food that dropped on the ground or edges of fields untouched so that the poor can work to gather their food.

So you guys are actually OK with seeing the old and disabled out on the streets begging for handouts?

Here's an idea to reduce welfare handouts, but one that many of you guys probably aren't gonna like: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. It could be $15, or it could be slightly less or slightly more depending on the region of the country. Make it a state decision.

Now, I can already hear the libertardians marching forward, so let me make a few points. As far as I know, there aren't many (any?) places in the US where you can survive on $8.75/hr. When I say survive, I mean pay the rent, have enough for groceries, and afford a vehicle. What's the average rent for a studio apartment in a mid-sized US city? Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's around $700/month, and I'm being conservative here. The minimum wage slaves can barely afford that. So, when employers aren't paying people enough to survive, they are obviously going to turn to the government for help. So the taxpayers end up subsidizing these poor folks despite the fact that many of them are working full-time but still can't make ends meet.

Now, a lot of times folks on the right make the argument that these low-wage jobs are "meant for teenagers" and shouldn't be used as a crutch to make income. But the truth is, a ton of adults, for one reason or another, work these jobs. It could be because they are low IQ, unlucky, or who knows, maybe they actually do enjoy working 50 hours a week at Panera bread. Whatever it is, there is no reason why they should be struggling to make ends meet. Companies like Costco understand this and why they have a good reputation.

Companies that pay shit are forcing the rest of you to subsidize the poor. It's really that simple.

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:05 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Here's an idea to reduce welfare handouts, but one that many of you guys probably aren't gonna like: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. It could be $15, or it could be slightly less or slightly more depending on the region of the country. Make it a state decision.

Now, I can already hear the libertardians marching forward, so let me make a few points. As far as I know, there aren't many (any?) places in the US where you can survive on $8.75/hr. When I say survive, I mean pay the rent, have enough for groceries, and afford a vehicle. What's the average rent for a studio apartment in a mid-sized US city? Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's around $700/month, and I'm being conservative here. The minimum wage slaves can barely afford that. So, when employers aren't paying people enough to survive, they are obviously going to turn to the government for help. So the taxpayers end up subsidizing these poor folks despite the fact that many of them are working full-time but still can't make ends meet.

Now, a lot of times folks on the right make the argument that these low-wage jobs are "meant for teenagers" and shouldn't be used as a crutch to make income. But the truth is, a ton of adults, for one reason or another, work these jobs. It could be because they are low IQ, unlucky, or who knows, maybe they actually do enjoy working 50 hours a week at Panera bread. Whatever it is, there is no reason why they should be struggling to make ends meet. Companies like Costco understand this and why they have a good reputation.

Companies that pay shit are forcing the rest of you to subsidize the poor. It's really that simple.

Why are you being so stingy? If raising the minimum wage to $15 results in net prosperity gains, why not raise it to $50 or $100?

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:08 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

Why are you being so stingy? If raising the minimum wage to $15 results in net prosperity gains, why not raise it to $50 or $100?

I know I know, "muh low-skill jobs deserve low wages". I'm just saying you can't expect people to fuck off and die simply because they don't have a high-income job. They're going to turn to the evil gubmnt for handouts because they have to put food on the table.

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:08 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

Why are you being so stingy? If raising the minimum wage to $15 results in net prosperity gains, why not raise it to $50 or $100?

This is such a trash argument. The reason conservatives lose is that we make trash arguments like these and expect people to be persuaded.

"If eating kale is good for you, why don't we constantly force a nutritious kale slurry down everybody's throats 24/7? Huh? Bet you don't have an answer to that, Mr. Liberal Man!"

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:05 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Here's an idea to reduce welfare handouts, but one that many of you guys probably aren't gonna like: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. It could be $15, or it could be slightly less or slightly more depending on the region of the country. Make it a state decision.

Now, I can already hear the libertardians marching forward, so let me make a few points. As far as I know, there aren't many (any?) places in the US where you can survive on $8.75/hr. When I say survive, I mean pay the rent, have enough for groceries, and afford a vehicle. What's the average rent for a studio apartment in a mid-sized US city? Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's around $700/month, and I'm being conservative here. The minimum wage slaves can barely afford that. So, when employers aren't paying people enough to survive, they are obviously going to turn to the government for help. So the taxpayers end up subsidizing these poor folks despite the fact that many of them are working full-time but still can't make ends meet.

Now, a lot of times folks on the right make the argument that these low-wage jobs are "meant for teenagers" and shouldn't be used as a crutch to make income. But the truth is, a ton of adults, for one reason or another, work these jobs. It could be because they are low IQ, unlucky, or who knows, maybe they actually do enjoy working 50 hours a week at Panera bread. Whatever it is, there is no reason why they should be struggling to make ends meet. Companies like Costco understand this and why they have a good reputation.

Companies that pay shit are forcing the rest of you to subsidize the poor. It's really that simple.

But the problem is that with higher minimum wage. Wouldn't that reduce the incentive to hire people?

If the minimum wage is higher companies would like to get their monies worth and hence lock more people especially of the low skilled variety from starting employment.

Tight-controls on immigration and lack of incentives for child-bearing(like childcare subsidies, child tax credit, maternity leave etc) along with a healthy monetary system would likely contribute to higher wages without the problem of more people being locked out of employment than not. A lower birthrate as a result along with cheap laborers being unable to be imported would raise the wages forcibly all else being equal. Although Automation may be a complete game changer.


There is also another proven way of how wages were to be forced to rise:

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:05 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Now, I can already hear the libertardians marching forward, so let me make a few points. As far as I know, there aren't many (any?) places in the US where you can survive on $8.75/hr. When I say survive, I mean pay the rent, have enough for groceries, and afford a vehicle. What's the average rent for a studio apartment in a mid-sized US city? Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's around $700/month, and I'm being conservative here. The minimum wage slaves can barely afford that. So, when employers aren't paying people enough to survive, they are obviously going to turn to the government for help.

The other real question is why the cost is living is so high. That has to be tackled as well. There is no reason to believe that raising minimum wage would not also correspond with rising costs of living in accordance with such raises.

Like how such costs will be passed onto the consumers and this would have a knock on effects down the chain.

Unless the causes of the high costs of living is tackled the situation cannot be properly and fully improved.

People are poor because they make shitty decisions. Raising the minimum wage to (what the fuck ever) will still result in the same people spending all the money they make and failing to build any financial margin in their lives.

If you can’t afdord an apartment because you make minimum wage then it’s time to adjust- get another job, find a roommate, ditch the iPhone, etc. Failing to adjust while whining that things aren’t fair won’t get you much credibility with people that mattter.

People need to be tougher.

Quote: (02-09-2019 12:35 PM)Dilated Wrote:  

People are poor because they make shitty decisions. Raising the minimum wage to (what the fuck ever) will still result in the same people spending all the money they make and failing to build any financial margin in their lives.

If you can’t afdord an apartment because you make minimum wage then it’s time to adjust- get another job, find a roommate, ditch the iPhone, etc. Failing to adjust while whining that things aren’t fair won’t get you much credibility with people that mattter.

People need to be tougher.

Another winning argument! "Inflation, rising rent, student loans destroying any chance you had at keeping the same standard of living as your parents? Suck it up, prole! Whining won't get you credibility with people that matter!"

You realize that the guys your denigrating get a vote that's worth every bit as much as yours, right? And that if you can't come up with a system that at least gives them a shot, they'll just vote for the socialist?

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:50 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:08 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

Why are you being so stingy? If raising the minimum wage to $15 results in net prosperity gains, why not raise it to $50 or $100?

This is such a trash argument. The reason conservatives lose is that we make trash arguments like these and expect people to be persuaded.

"If eating kale is good for you, why don't we constantly force a nutritious kale slurry down everybody's throats 24/7? Huh? Bet you don't have an answer to that, Mr. Liberal Man!"

I noticed that you don't have an answer to the argument, and resort to personal attacks. My ex used to pull the same thing.

"Your argument is trash" is not a personal attack.

Since it went over your head the first time, I'll try again.

It can sometimes be a good idea to increase an amount, but a bad idea to increase it too much.
It may be good for me to increase the number of pushups I do in a day to 50. It might be bad to increase them to 5000.
It may increase profits at my store if I pay workers a dollar an hour more. It could keep my workers happy and motivated, and make the good ones want to stay. It might be bad to pay them 100$ an hour more.

Everyone knows this, which is why the argument is a trash argument.

I think corporations that replace people with robots should be taxed at a higher rate. I'm not sure how it would work, but there should be a minimum number of people employed if you reach X amount of revenue and earnings otherwise you jump into another tax bracket.

Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate that income taxes are. Scumbags like Warren Buffett love to drone on about raising income taxes because they aren't working for an income.

Tax rates should be 0% for the first 100K, 5% for 100-250k, 10% for 250k-1M, 15% for 1-10M, 20% for 10-50M, 25% for 50-250M, and 30% for 250M+.

No deductions, no write offs, nothing. No writing checks to your own charity, none of that bullshit. Get rid of the H&R blocks, save billions a year. I don't know what the actual tax rates should be, but people under 100-150k a year shouldn't have to pay them. We should be helping people get rich, not suck them dry.

Get rid of any welfare for illegals, and seize any business that employs them. Save another 100 billion a year.

Implement a tobin tax on money speculators, generate hundreds of billions to a couple of trillion a year.

Execute politicians that accept bribes.

End the FED and start printing our own money.
-----------
If we did these things and a few others, I think a welfare system for Americans would be fine. We have 2 million homeless children in this country, something should be done about that.

Quote: (02-09-2019 09:05 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Here's an idea to reduce welfare handouts, but one that many of you guys probably aren't gonna like: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. It could be $15, or it could be slightly less or slightly more depending on the region of the country. Make it a state decision.

Now, I can already hear the libertardians marching forward, so let me make a few points. As far as I know, there aren't many (any?) places in the US where you can survive on $8.75/hr. When I say survive, I mean pay the rent, have enough for groceries, and afford a vehicle. What's the average rent for a studio apartment in a mid-sized US city? Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's around $700/month, and I'm being conservative here. The minimum wage slaves can barely afford that. So, when employers aren't paying people enough to survive, they are obviously going to turn to the government for help. So the taxpayers end up subsidizing these poor folks despite the fact that many of them are working full-time but still can't make ends meet.

Now, a lot of times folks on the right make the argument that these low-wage jobs are "meant for teenagers" and shouldn't be used as a crutch to make income. But the truth is, a ton of adults, for one reason or another, work these jobs. It could be because they are low IQ, unlucky, or who knows, maybe they actually do enjoy working 50 hours a week at Panera bread. Whatever it is, there is no reason why they should be struggling to make ends meet. Companies like Costco understand this and why they have a good reputation.

Companies that pay shit are forcing the rest of you to subsidize the poor. It's really that simple.

What did I just read? This is the type of Economically Illiterate stuff I'd expect to read from Alexandria Occasion Cortez or Bernie Sanders. This type of economic stupidity is what leads to mass starvation.

You seem to lack any understanding of business other than "OMG those evil oppressive capitalists".

In business everything has a cost. If you want to have a business that builds computers you have to source the parts and get people to build it. Labor is just another business cost.

Raising the minimum wage is a stupid idea. It always has and it always will be. Every laborer has a price to the company that they have to pay (Salary of the person). If you raise the price of labor for a worker and the price is higher than what the person produces then the company loses money just by having that person.

Only thing then is to fire that person or reduce their hours. You can't Feelz and socialism your way to solving a fundamental math problem. If you are paying a person more than what their labor is worth then you lose money.

Now the minimum wage issue. Raising it to lets say $15/hr will mean all workers whose labor is worth less than 15 just become unprofitable to hire. So those workers are then reduced or fired. OR the company goes under. Either way you end up with people making less. So on top of losing a certain percentage of businesses that go bankrupt (and the tax revenue)... You also end up with a lot of people earning less money.

Guess what? That tax revenue is also lost. So now instead of someone making lets say $9/hr. You raise the minimum wage to $15 and they suddenly make 0/hr. All the economic activity for that area dries up. And then people like you come in and still blame those evil business owners.

Here is an example




About 22 mins in listen to the german farmer harvesting Asparagus. Thats the result of raising the minimum wage.

You just have to accept that some skills are only worth so much. People need to find better solutions like getting trained in something else instead of demanding they get paid more than they are worth to the company.

Zigzag, I hear you to some degree. I'm no economist and I don't think there are "rational" solutions to this problem. But let me say that employers who can't afford to pay their workers a decent wage... well, then what they should do is shut down their business and let someone who can. I dont care if it's a mom n pop shop or a major company. I don't want anyone working full time to run to the government for handouts. That ain't right. If that sounds like feelz and muh socialism then so be it.

Quote: (02-10-2019 02:03 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Zigzag, I hear you to some degree. I'm no economist and I don't think there are "rational" solutions to this problem. But let me say that employers who can't afford to pay their workers a decent wage... well, then what they should do is shut down their business and let someone who can. I dont care if it's a mom n pop shop or a major company. I don't want anyone working full time to run to the government for handouts. That ain't right. If that sounds like feelz and muh socialism then so be it.

Those people can always stop working for that company and either look for another job or just keep getting welfare.

If that company can't find people they will either automate or raise wages to entice people to work for them instead of going to the government.

You wanting employers to close down and put all employees on welfare is ridiculous. How is closing down businesses and making more people go on welfare a better solution? Makes no sense.

Quote: (02-09-2019 02:53 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

I think corporations that replace people with robots should be taxed at a higher rate. I'm not sure how it would work, but there should be a minimum number of people employed if you reach X amount of revenue and earnings otherwise you jump into another tax bracket.

We may end up taxing corporations a lot more depending on how much automation takes over our industries. That is ok because profits can still be quite high because of the automation.

If it goes that way, I would expect "Basic Income" to become a reality.

Basic income may not be a bad thing. I just wonder how bad things will get when people have too much time on their hands. People tend to get into trouble if they don't stay busy.

Quote: (02-10-2019 02:03 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Zigzag, I hear you to some degree. I'm no economist and I don't think there are "rational" solutions to this problem. But let me say that employers who can't afford to pay their workers a decent wage... well, then what they should do is shut down their business and let someone who can. I dont care if it's a mom n pop shop or a major company. I don't want anyone working full time to run to the government for handouts. That ain't right. If that sounds like feelz and muh socialism then so be it.

It's also not right that we all don't have a 100 ft Yacht along with two Green eyed Ukrainian Models (Virgins of course)

But seriously what kind of morality is that? On one side workers should be provided a living by the employer no matter what... yet at the same time Employers who can't do that.. well fuck em. They deserve to be financially destroyed go bankrupt and probably deal with crippling depression.

That's a fucked up world view in my opinion. It seems you don't actually care about workers. You just hate people who have businesses. Somehow you seem to think that business owners are rational actors with agency but workers don't have that. Workers can't make good decisions like gain useful skills and leave a bad employer. It's the employer who is the one who has agency.

Honestly it's like the feminist argument. That's what you're doing right now. It's also a deeply immoral one because you don't seem to give a fuck about employers. It's survival of the fittest... but workers well they need to be provided everything they want no matter what skills they have.

Ironically when businesses fail all workers lose their job. So all the workers you supposedly cared about.. end up making 0/hr instead of 8/hr. Which means they suck up more welfare.

So not only is what you're saying deeply immoral.. but the outcome is much much much worse for everyone.

Quote: (02-10-2019 02:40 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Quote: (02-09-2019 02:53 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

I think corporations that replace people with robots should be taxed at a higher rate. I'm not sure how it would work, but there should be a minimum number of people employed if you reach X amount of revenue and earnings otherwise you jump into another tax bracket.

We may end up taxing corporations a lot more depending on how much automation takes over our industries. That is ok because profits can still be quite high because of the automation.

If it goes that way, I would expect "Basic Income" to become a reality.

Basic income may not be a bad thing. I just wonder how bad things will get when people have too much time on their hands. People tend to get into trouble if they don't stay busy.

If we tax companies more they'll just leave. Like It's that simple. Companies can make shit with robots then they'll just go to another country and make it there. If it's a service based company (like Mcdonalds) then they'll make everything they possibly can overseas and even incorporate overseas and limit their tax burden at home (Like google and apple do).

This is why all these socialist garbage fails. Socialism is slavery. Who the hell wants to be a slave? UBI is the same slavery garbage. we will NEVER have a small slave class working hard producing things and pay taxes so that the lazy masses don't have to work and get money for existing.

It's fundamentally inhuman. It can never work. It has never worked and it will never work.

I don't want employers to shut down. Not at all. But... them paying min wage knowing full well that the poor scrub won't be able to make rent or buy enough groceries isn't helping anybody. Them having to close their business because they couldn't find help working for shit pay.... well that's the free market at work! Isnt it? Seems to me like when the free market dictates you adjust your wages to accommodate the standards of living, all of a sudden you hear employers going "but that gonna drive us into bankruptcy you dirty commie!".

In which case I say fuck em. Let em go bankrupt.

Quote: (02-10-2019 03:15 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

If we tax companies more they'll just leave. Like It's that simple. Companies can make shit with robots then they'll just go to another country and make it there. If it's a service based company (like Mcdonalds) then they'll make everything they possibly can overseas and even incorporate overseas and limit their tax burden at home (Like google and apple do).

This is why all these socialist garbage fails. Socialism is slavery. Who the hell wants to be a slave? UBI is the same slavery garbage. we will NEVER have a small slave class working hard producing things and pay taxes so that the lazy masses don't have to work and get money for existing.

It's fundamentally inhuman. It can never work. It has never worked and it will never work.

Nah, companies won't leave one of the biggest markets in the world. These companies are willing to lose intellectual property just to get into a market like China. Why would they leave the US market with all of it's protections over higher taxes. Especially if profits are higher through automation.

They also said manufacturing wouldn't come back until Trump took over.

Google and Apple has and continues to invest a lot money in the US. These companies will always invest in different countries. They are global companies after all.

Quote: (02-10-2019 03:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

I don't want employers to shut down. Not at all. But... them paying min wage knowing full well that the poor scrub won't be able to make rent or buy enough groceries isn't helping anybody. Them having to close their business because they couldn't find help working for shit pay.... well that's the free market at work! Isnt it? Seems to me like when the free market dictates you adjust your wages to accommodate the standards of living, all of a sudden you hear employers going "but that gonna drive us into bankruptcy you dirty commie!".

In which case I say fuck em. Let em go bankrupt.

How can we have a free market when we dictate what an employer is allowed to pay an employee? .. (basically we interfere with no adults going into an agreement).

This type of interference is exactly why companies then hire illegals. Cause a job as a fruit picker for example isn't worth minimum wage. It's worth less. Many other jobs are not worth minimum wage (at the level it is now)... So all of this just makes it harder for people to get work because companies will just hire illegals.

No matter how you put it. The numbers are all that matter.

It seems to me you're driven by hatred of these minimum wage paying companies and that's unfortunate.

Quote: (02-10-2019 03:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

I don't want employers to shut down. Not at all. But... them paying min wage knowing full well that the poor scrub won't be able to make rent or buy enough groceries isn't helping anybody. Them having to close their business because they couldn't find help working for shit pay.... well that's the free market at work! Isnt it? Seems to me like when the free market dictates you adjust your wages to accommodate the standards of living, all of a sudden you hear employers going "but that gonna drive us into bankruptcy you dirty commie!".

In which case I say fuck em. Let em go bankrupt.

What you wrote earlier isn't a free market. A free market adjust wages to meet demand. What you suggested is anti free market. What you want is businesses to shut down if they don't give their employees what YOU think they deserve.

Ultimately companies and employers pay whatever they goddamn want. Point taken. All I'm saying is consider the unintentended consequences like "ghosting", a recent trend by the way. You'll often hear how employers are struggling to find quality workers and having them stick around. Yea asshole you're offering garbage pay, why would I bust my ass off for you? No health insurance, no benefits and you have a job qualifications list that's a mile long. Talk about delusional!

Then when these companies turn around and hire illegals or H1Bs you guys hop on the but "muh hire Americans" mantra. Make up your minds.

Quote: (02-10-2019 05:22 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Ultimately companies and employers pay whatever they goddamn want. Point taken. All I'm saying is consider the unintentended consequences like "ghosting", a recent trend by the way. You'll often hear how employers are struggling to find quality workers and having them stick around. Yea asshole you're offering garbage pay, why would I bust my ass off for you? No health insurance, no benefits and you have a job qualifications list that's a mile long. Talk about delusional!

Then when these companies turn around and hire illegals or H1Bs you guys hop on the but "muh hire Americans" mantra. Make up your minds.

Companies will pay what they need to pay or go out of business. They don't get to pay whatever they want.

Illegals work for less, hence companies will hire illegals because of that. If there were no illegals, they would pay what they would need to pay in order to retain legal workers. That probably means higher wages. People who are for American workers want higher wages for them because we know illegals suppress wages. I thought that was what you wanted as well?

I agree there are many companies crying about people not accepting low pay. They can go out of business for all I care if they don't or can't get people to work for them. More jobs equals more options which in the end should be better for pay and benefits. Companies can't afford a take it of leave it approach when people have a lot of options.

That is part of a free market.

I don't see any inconsistency with what many of us are saying.

What exactly are you having a problem understanding?