Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 06 Oct 2023, 12:08 am » wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2023, 12:08 am

Well, again, the facts on the ground dispute your narrative. I don't believe you can show me any state that introduced a minimum wage and did not prosper significantly - beyond whatever growth they had been experiencing in the years leading up. 

I can certainly show you states that HAVE prospered - already did show you one, in fact. 

If you look at the economic condition of the states with only the federal minimum, you will see that they are in a **** position compared to those with a higher state minimum. 

Like I say, there is life by prescription and life by description. Another way I put it is, there's the map and then there's the territory. 

I feel like I have been talking about the territory, and you have been talking about the map. 

For me to dispute your map should not concern you. But for the territory to dispute your map? Yeah - now, THAT should concern you. You might need to alter your map.

I'm not saying that I'm mistake proof. Maybe I am wrong about the territory. But that's your job to prove. The only fault that I can find with your theory about how things work is that it disputes my real word OBSERVATION of how things work.

It all depends on how you want to measure prosperity.
A quick drive around the West Coast areas I have ever lived show more crime and less prosperity.
The West Coast is well known for leading the way with MW increases.
 
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 Oct 2023, 12:18 am » wrote: ↑

06 Oct 2023, 12:18 am

It all depends on how you want to measure prosperity.
A quick drive around the West Coast areas I have ever lived show more crime and less prosperity.
The West Coast is well known for leading the way with MW increases.

I suppose that is a topic in and of itself. And it has to take *** into account - which is a separate issue.

Admittedly, I am using aggregates. But I don't think that can be avoided without resorting to cherry picking. I promise you with no fear of embarrassment that I can take you to some Louisiana and Mississippi **** holes. 

I am firmly of the opinion - again, based on real world observations - that the **** holes in the federal minimum states are **** and more ubiquitous than the **** holes in the civilized states that have a higher minimum than the federal government.

I still say this is very much a map vs territory debate - with you valiantly representing the map.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 05 Oct 2023, 5:43 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2023, 5:43 pm

Here's a little trip down memory lane - my very first sentence of my very first post in response to you:

I truly do not agree with your argument that we should make policy based on the incompetence of ***. That's how you get smart guys like me to drop out of school after finishing eighth grade. By tailoring the goddamned lesson plane to 80 IQ yard apes.

I think it is absolutely stupid to base something so important on an issue better addressed by building more prisons than by third-worlding our line workers. :)

I wonder if I give a ****. Lemmee check, and get back with you..

My solution was tailored - as solutions properly are. Everything else is just a prescription - and I'm not a pill popper.

If everyone took my advice, there would be a retarded bidding war instead of ONE GUY using his wits to make the best of a bad situation.

And make no mistake. I absolutely understand that ANY raise in the minimum presents a bad situation for employers. But it is an even playing field. What's happening to you is happening to the competition, as well. So it is the MARKET, more so than the individual employer, which must absorb the shock. Funny thing? In every case I know about, we've seen the market take it in stride.

The free market of free will choices leads to social orders pretending life isn't self evident but circumstantial events created by social interpretations of living exceeds the natural timing of of compounding chromosome results present one ancestor at a time in the whole food chain each generation gap existed and existing here now.

The simplicity of thermodynamic principles vs principals of reasonable doubt promising events that never exist without power of suggesting real isn't self evident.

"We believe mantras in each alternate reality within one species in one atmosphere with any line of communication employed" and anyone defying us will get eliminated by any means moralized, legalized, ethically applied economically will be removed from any reality dedicated to saving tomorrow each generation gap arriving today.

No Honest explanation of evolving will not go unpunished until extinction ends the species performing alternate realities at the same time occupying space in the same atmosphere here. Living is specific events combined in series parallel actions and reactions of the whole time life is never same total sum achieved ancestrally here until the species is no longer present.

Rule of 72 divided 3 ways, yesterday(previous generations died), today(current generations separated one at a time), future generations not conceived yet all governed by 24/7 hyperbole.

Cannonpointer » 04 Oct 2023, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 6:32 pm

So, if we DO NOT raise minimum wages annually, what will that do to the purchasing power of minimum wage workers, year over year? Before you answer, let me key you in on my thinking. It's my suspicion that inflation will LOWER their purchasing power, bringing them closer to the afore mentioned Guatemalens. Which means without a COLA, minimum wage workers are getting poorer and poorer and poorer. If this continues, we're likely to see people just give up on work altogether, on the reasoning that poverty is less miserable if it is at least bloody well attended by leisure. Imagine the insult of working to exhaustion and being no better off financially than the slacker in the next bus seat over. 


 

Yea...this is the most obvious concept to any non-ideologue. Nobody is going to work for $5/hr (in fact, most people today in America won't work for anything less than $15 in 2023 for "low skill jobs" and if you want people who will...actually work instead of just show up you'd better pay close to $20/hr) when they can play video games or torrent movies or stroll around the park or whatever.

 

Cannonpointer » 04 Oct 2023, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 7:58 pm

I have always argued that business people who can only win by someone else losing are better suited to be employees than employers. The folks who lose from minimum wage hikes are folks that never belonged in business in the first place.

Yes, I made the same argument (just using a more formal tone) to some other people. The businesses that tend to suffer from MW increases are so-called "marginal" businesses, which are already teetering on the edge of insolvency because their margins are ****. Any increase in expenses would put them deep(er) in the red, and with little or no cash supply on hand they can't weather the storm. 

So they can blame MW increases...or just accept their business was **** in the first place (i.e. nobody wanted to pay decent money for the so-called "value" they were providing).

ConsRule » 05 Oct 2023, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2023, 12:05 pm

Liberals don't really want a minimum wage...they want the minimum wage issue.

If they REALLY wanted a minimum wage law, there would not be exceptions for students, employees with disabilities, employees who work less than a specified number of hours, employers who employee one or two employees, employees working on farms, tipped employees, etc. (not all of these apply in every state). If they truly cared about employees, they would care about every **** employee, regardless of their age, the size of their employer, the number of hours they worked, the type of job the had, etc. Since there are exceptions/exemptions, you know that care about the issue, not the people.

Virtually every exception you named does exist - and more. For example, certain small employers are not bound to pay overtime for more than 40 hours.

But the pretense that "liberals" are responsible for the existence of these cutouts is ***-pulled. And if they WERE responsible for these cutouts, it would not mean what you think it means. 
 

LowIQTrash » 05 Oct 2023, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2023, 2:45 pm

You are right. Liberals don't really care about MW workers.

So how exactly does that make them different from cons? You think CONS care about MW workers? LOL

Oh, they care deeply - DEEPLY.

Especially about the of-colored ones.

No, really. 
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Nov 2023, 2:53 am » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2023, 2:53 am

Virtually every exception you named does exist - and more. For example, certain small employers are not bound to pay overtime for more than 40 hours.

But the pretense that "liberals" are responsible for the existence of these cutouts is ***-pulled. And if they WERE responsible for these cutouts, it would not mean what you think it means.

Where did I say liberals were responsible for the existence of the cutouts?  Those are your words, not mine.  My point is, if liberals truly wanted a minimum wage (which does not work), they would be fighting to have every cutout eliminated with an increase in the minimum.  By allowing (accepting) cutouts, they are admitting the concept of being for "the working man" is utter ****.  They are admitting not every "working man" deserves their support and help and their effort is nothing more than a political stunt intended to deceive.
 

LowIQTrash » 20 Nov 2023, 2:36 am » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2023, 2:36 am

Yea...this is the most obvious concept to any non-ideologue. Nobody is going to work for $5/hr (in fact, most people today in America won't work for anything less than $15 in 2023 for "low skill jobs" and if you want people who will...actually work instead of just show up you'd better pay close to $20/hr) when they can play video games or torrent movies or stroll around the park or whatever.

 

Rent a mobs get free food and travel and since they are homeless divested from any community they protest in. All the money from organizations creating the optic for news and public debate launder the money through campaign war chests, black market putting the currency back into legal markets.

Light and dark sides of pretending now isn't eternity working in series parallel time as displaced in real time evolving people of charcter will never agree how life equally creates the living replacements present.

Reasonable doubt doesn't protect or defend ancestral time displaced equally here. it sustains corruption all 5 generation gaps evolving as genetics eternally separates each here now as has been eternally separated in plain sight each brain has its own sense of proportionately here.

Until hope, faith, charity, opportunity, Power, Wealth, fame can be achieved by means, methods, motives, saving humanity, sustains mayhem, madness, misery with generation gaps always practicing psychological class warfare in their own family units learned academically, maintained artistically, economics designed as rewards and punishment for complying and defying possibilities, social consensus typecasting ancestors into contextually defined people, political rank, spiritual convictions to separate leaders from fellowships, creating Royal we, loyal us, obedient they, them, those any individuals become malcontents to humanity's greater good goals of better tomorrows each rotation of the planet is labeled a day in the life since conceived to replace previous 4 generation gaps occupying space inhabiting same moment here.

But evolving doesn't exceed being alive now one at a time.