• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blue Contradictions Coming to the Fore

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Blue Contradictions Coming to the Fore - The American Interest

...Anti-inequality crusaders want a radical minimum wage hike, which will likely have the effect of raising unemployment (and welfare eligibility) among economically deprived blue constituencies. Meanwhile, those most likely to benefit down the line from these kinds of moves [by providing automation to replace minimum wage jobs] are the socially liberal Silicon Valley executives and venture capitalists, who bankroll the Democratic Party despite some of their dearly held libertarian beliefs.

And this is but one example of how the blue model functions as an engine through which savvy wealthy people use the illusions of the Left to extract profit from the poor and working class. Other examples include: Guild protections for elite professionals that raise prices and reduce opportunity for less-credentialed workers; finance regulations that give hedge funds a leg up on less-sophisticated investors; and a constellation of higher ed regulations that enrich top administrators while impoverishing adjuncts and sending students deep into debt.

All left wingers think that they will be the party leaders, raking in all the money and enjoying the power. They think they'll be getting money without earning it. That's the essence of the appeal of socialism. The truth of it, though, is that most of them will end up being losers, ground under the heels of the elite.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Blue Contradictions Coming to the Fore - The American Interest



All left wingers think that they will be the party leaders, raking in all the money and enjoying the power. They think they'll be getting money without earning it. That's the essence of the appeal of socialism. The truth of it, though, is that most of them will end up being losers, ground under the heels of the elite.

In other words:

"Leftists aren't really committed to what they say they are, they're just pretending for the purpose of advancing their own interests."

This is rather specious, especially considering that it requires that all leftists are just pretending out kf perceived self-interest. It's much simpler and more straightforward to say that they are honestly advocating what is necessitated by their brand of liberalism, and the reason leftism acts in its self-interest is because those types of liberalism that don't act in their own interests die out.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,245
Reaction score
41,764
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is the goal of increasing the MW to reduce government subsidies or to increase the chances of locking folks out of ever getting that, all important, first (entry level) job? The problem seems to be that the "safety net" pays more than an entry level job - why not try reducing the maximum "safety net" benefits to that level (currently about $15K/year)?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Is the goal of increasing the MW to reduce government subsidies or to increase the chances of locking folks out of ever getting that, all important, first (entry level) job? The problem seems to be that the "safety net" pays more than an entry level job - why not try reducing the maximum "safety net" benefits to that level (currently about $15K/year)?

Or an even more radical notion, why not reduce public payments by only 30 or 50 or 70 cents for every dollar of earned income, so it's always financially beneficial to find even part-time or low-wage work?

Edit: A concept so blindingly obvious (admittedly with my advantage of it being the case in Australia) and beneficial to everyone that, since it hasn't been implemented, one might reasonably theorize the major US parties want welfare to remain a political battleground.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,245
Reaction score
41,764
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Or an even more radical notion, why not reduce public payments by only 30 or 50 or 70 cents for every dollar of earned income, so it's always financially beneficial to find even part-time or low-wage work?

Edit: A concept so blindingly obvious (admittedly with my advantage of it being the case in Australia) and beneficial to everyone that, since it hasn't been implemented, one might reasonably theorize the major US parties want welfare to remain a political battleground.

Why is reducing the net benefit of work (for some folks) a good idea? If Sally, who lives with their parents and gets no government assistance, gets to keep her whole paycheck then why shouldn't Suzy who gets government assistance? Why should Sally benefit more for doing the same job as Suzy does?

If the "safety net" paid only the difference of what is earned and a single full time MW job then everyone would benefit equally from exceeding that amount of income. My goal is not to get ever more folks working for the MW but to get more folks beyond that wage.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
31,666
Reaction score
12,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
31,666
Reaction score
12,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is the goal of increasing the MW to reduce government subsidies or to increase the chances of locking folks out of ever getting that, all important, first (entry level) job? The problem seems to be that the "safety net" pays more than an entry level job - why not try reducing the maximum "safety net" benefits to that level (currently about $15K/year)?

One must bear in mind that "entry level" doesn't mean the same as it did when we were kids. Not really any such thing as a "career", for instance. No job security in the way we saw it.

Capitalism CHANGED in the mid-seventies. No longer "symbiotic", every year it becomes more predatory, more parasitic. The rising tide, and it has continued to rise, lifts fewer boats every year.

If global capitalism was actually a game of Monopoly most of us would have quit to go watch TV, play video games, paint a picture, ANYTHING but sit at the board going through the motions when its obvious who's going to win. We don't because we can't.

An interesting aside, I did some reading on the Founders and their thoughts on wealth, etc. You see all the quotes usually posted on the subject. What you don't see posted is the underlying premise they all mention of a birthright. That the earth's fruits belong to each generation as children of god. They talk of "compensating" citizens for limiting that resource access through private property rights. This concept is everywhere in their writings, nowhere in modern conservative thought.

Its worth thinking about.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
One must bear in mind that "entry level" doesn't mean the same as it did when we were kids. Not really any such thing as a "career", for instance. No job security in the way we saw it.

Capitalism CHANGED in the mid-seventies. No longer "symbiotic", every year it becomes more predatory, more parasitic. The rising tide, and it has continued to rise, lifts fewer boats every year.

If global capitalism was actually a game of Monopoly most of us would have quit to go watch TV, play video games, paint a picture, ANYTHING but sit at the board going through the motions when its obvious who's going to win. We don't because we can't.

An interesting aside, I did some reading on the Founders and their thoughts on wealth, etc. You see all the quotes usually posted on the subject. What you don't see posted is the underlying premise they all mention of a birthright, usufruct. That the earth's fruits belong to each generation as children of god. They talk of "compensating" citizens for limiting that resource access through private property rights. This concept is everywhere in their writings, nowhere in modern conservative thought.

Its worth thinking about.

We don't have anything remotely resembling a free market economy in this country. So your comments about the "failure" of "capitalism", are meaningless.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
31,666
Reaction score
12,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We don't have anything remotely resembling a free market economy in this country. So your comments about the "failure" of "capitalism", are meaningless.

Free market capitalism MIGHT work starting over from scratch on a new planet. Here, with most of the worlds capital already in huge pile? Not a ****ing chance.

And I'm gonna bet you believe the "communism" examples commonly used were genuine attempts at communism too, rather than the power grabs they clearly were.

And capitalism is working just fine for the owners of the most capital. It just isn't working for everybody else.

You do know capitalism is made up, right?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is the goal of increasing the MW to reduce government subsidies or to increase the chances of locking folks out of ever getting that, all important, first (entry level) job? The problem seems to be that the "safety net" pays more than an entry level job - why not try reducing the maximum "safety net" benefits to that level (currently about $15K/year)?

...because that's the opposite of what people are trying to accomplish.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,847
Reaction score
33,760
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is the goal of increasing the MW to reduce government subsidies or to increase the chances of locking folks out of ever getting that, all important, first (entry level) job? The problem seems to be that the "safety net" pays more than an entry level job - why not try reducing the maximum "safety net" benefits to that level (currently about $15K/year)?

Whether or not it is the goal of increasing the MW to reduce government subsidies to individuals or not, the effect of raising wages of entry level jobs is to reduce the numbers of people who are eligible for such subsidies. Subsidies to industry are another matter, and depend on who has the most effective lobbyists, but that's yet another story.

Our collective goal, if ever we could have enough collective to actually have such a goal, needs to be to assure that people who work, even at an entry level job, are better off than people who don't work. How that goal is achieved is immaterial if we don't have such a goal in the first place.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Free market capitalism MIGHT work starting over from scratch on a new planet. Here, with most of the worlds capital already in huge pile? Not a ****ing chance.

And I'm gonna bet you believe the "communism" examples commonly used were genuine attempts at communism too, rather than the power grabs they clearly were.

And capitalism is working just fine for the owners of the most capital. It just isn't working for everybody else.

You do know capitalism is made up, right?

Ah, the ole "static pile of money" meme. You realize that's a fairy tale, right?

I see, so when "capitalism" doesn't work, it's "capitalism's" fault. When communism doesn't work, it's someone else's fault.

"Capitalism" is a term coined by Marx as a pejorative.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why is reducing the net benefit of work (for some folks) a good idea? If Sally, who lives with their parents and gets no government assistance, gets to keep her whole paycheck then why shouldn't Suzy who gets government assistance? Why should Sally benefit more for doing the same job as Suzy does?

If the "safety net" paid only the difference of what is earned and a single full time MW job then everyone would benefit equally from exceeding that amount of income. My goal is not to get ever more folks working for the MW but to get more folks beyond that wage.

What you seem to be proposing is that if someone's on unemployment assistance but then gets a part time job, they lose a dollar of welfare for every dollar earned - same thing if they get a MW job. So why would they bother getting a part time or MW job at all, if they'll just be doing a bunch of work for no net gain? No doubt some folk think long-term, that eventually they'll climb above MW, but all in all that's a formula for welfare dependency. Welfare should reduce by less than the amount of earned income, so it's immediately financially beneficial to find work.

Of course that would require that unemployment payments are less than a full time MW income to begin with. In Australia the jobseeker allowance is less than half of an adult's pre-tax full time MW income, for example (though distinct from eligibilities such as rent assistance or childcare assistance). Another good reason to have higher minimum wages, perhaps - ours would be equivalent to about $12 an hour in the US.
 

blarg

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
14,833
Reaction score
2,015
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Blue Contradictions Coming to the Fore - The American Interest



All left wingers think that they will be the party leaders, raking in all the money and enjoying the power. They think they'll be getting money without earning it. That's the essence of the appeal of socialism. The truth of it, though, is that most of them will end up being losers, ground under the heels of the elite.

darn it tom you figured me out

the automation is coming no mater what though
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,847
Reaction score
33,760
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I once worked for minimum wage. The year was 1958, I was 16, and the MW was $1 an hour. That $1 would buy two fast food lunches, including a burger, fries, a drink, with change left over. Being a kid, I usually opted for two burgers or a shake instead of change left over. 16 year old boys require a lot of fuel. Anyway, translate that to today's money, and you can get an idea how much $1 was worth back in '58.

Then the unthinkable: Congress increased the minimum to $1.25! The world was about to end, entry level workers would be out of jobs, fast food places would go under, business everywhere would go bankrupt, doom and gloom was everywhere throughout the land.

Only, none of that actually happened. The economy kept plugging along, unemployment had its ups and downs just as it always has had, and the '60s were fairly prosperous, even peaceful up until Lyndon Johnson decided to send half a million soldiers to fight Commies in Vietnam.

I'm suspecting that the doom and gloom predictions this time around won't be any more accurate than those of 1960. Anyone want to make a bet?
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I once worked for minimum wage. The year was 1958, I was 16, and the MW was $1 an hour. That $1 would buy two fast food lunches, including a burger, fries, a drink, with change left over. Being a kid, I usually opted for two burgers or a shake instead of change left over. 16 year old boys require a lot of fuel. Anyway, translate that to today's money, and you can get an idea how much $1 was worth back in '58.

Then the unthinkable: Congress increased the minimum to $1.25! The world was about to end, entry level workers would be out of jobs, fast food places would go under, business everywhere would go bankrupt, doom and gloom was everywhere throughout the land.

Only, none of that actually happened. The economy kept plugging along, unemployment had its ups and downs just as it always has had, and the '60s were fairly prosperous, even peaceful up until Lyndon Johnson decided to send half a million soldiers to fight Commies in Vietnam.

I'm suspecting that the doom and gloom predictions this time around won't be any more accurate than those of 1960. Anyone want to make a bet?

Most people won't notice if the minimum wage is raised, and those who are affected won't have a voice. People will just suppose that it's bad luck that they can't find a starting level job. They'll think it's bad luck when the restaurant they work for closes shop. Poor people will just shrug when they have to pay a dollar or two more for fast food or the cheap clothing and shoes at Wal Mart. But nobody else will notice the hardship, certainly not left wingers, who are wedded to their stupid economic policies.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,847
Reaction score
33,760
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Most people won't notice if the minimum wage is raised, and those who are affected won't have a voice. People will just suppose that it's bad luck that they can't find a starting level job. They'll think it's bad luck when the restaurant they work for closes shop. Poor people will just shrug when they have to pay a dollar or two more for fast food or the cheap clothing and shoes at Wal Mart. But nobody else will notice the hardship, certainly not left wingers, who are wedded to their stupid economic policies.

None of that happened back in '60. In fact, there are more minimum wage jobs now than there were then, and restaurants are more popular than ever. There is no reason to suppose it will happen in '22 (when California's $15 minimum is set to kick in).
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,489
Reaction score
34,819
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We don't have anything remotely resembling a free market economy in this country. So your comments about the "failure" of "capitalism", are meaningless.

We have the, or one of the, most free markets out there.

We do not have a purely free market, because when we had something that was closer to that, we ended up with price-gouging monopolists and trust combinations, as well as deadly sweatshop grade manufacturing labor.




I question the knowledge, and if I err in that the sanity, of anyone who wants a return to late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions.
 
Last edited:

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,489
Reaction score
34,819
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Most people won't notice if the minimum wage is raised, and those who are affected won't have a voice. People will just suppose that it's bad luck that they can't find a starting level job. They'll think it's bad luck when the restaurant they work for closes shop. Poor people will just shrug when they have to pay a dollar or two more for fast food or the cheap clothing and shoes at Wal Mart. But nobody else will notice the hardship, certainly not left wingers, who are wedded to their stupid economic policies.

Companies like McDonalds did their best business and hired the most people in the last 60s, when the minimum wage was at its highest real dollar value since its inception. (Around $11/hr).

This is historical fact.




The more important fact is that there are about 999,999 factors other than minimum wage that go into the employment rate, whether in general or only amongst MW employers.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We have the, or one of the, most free markets out there.

We do not have a purely free market, because when we had something that was closer to that, we ended up with price-gouging monopolists and trust combinations, as well as deadly sweatshop grade manufacturing labor.




I question the knowledge, and if I err in that the sanity, of anyone who wants a return to late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions.

We didn't have anywhere close to a free market in the 19th century.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,489
Reaction score
34,819
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We have the, or one of the, most free markets out there.

We do not have a purely free market, because when we had something that was closer to that, we ended up with price-gouging monopolists and trust combinations, as well as deadly sweatshop grade manufacturing labor.




I question the knowledge, and if I err in that the sanity, of anyone who wants a return to late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions.



We didn't have anywhere close to a free market in the 19th century.

We had something very close to the sort of free market that can exist in a representative democracy in the 19th century.

We didn't have anywhere close to the sort of free market hat can exist in quasi/full-anarchist "libertarian" tribal arrangement. True.




Call me a dirty authoritarian, but I'd rather have things like rules requiring inspection of food preparation facilities to reduce the likelihood that my sausage contains 15% child limb, 20% ground wood pulp, and 20% rat poop (not existent in 19th C), criminal penalties for lying about what the contents of a product are (mostly absent in the 19th C), and the ability to go to court to sue you when it turns out your product has a 25% chance of exploding in my face. I'm glad that "the market" isn't so free as to allow businesses to defraud and/or harm me in the name of liberty.

Your comment is why people tend to think of libertarians as closeted anarchists.... not all are, true.... but to act like we had some kind of robust regulatory scheme that made the market unfree in the 19th century is laughably false.

Hell, T.R. had to fight tooth and claw for the simple proposition that maybe we should start paying attention to the predatory practices of monopolist trust combinations, and even then in only a few instances. And that was largely after the turn of the century.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We have the, or one of the, most free markets out there.

We do not have a purely free market, because when we had something that was closer to that, we ended up with price-gouging monopolists and trust combinations, as well as deadly sweatshop grade manufacturing labor.




I question the knowledge, and if I err in that the sanity, of anyone who wants a return to late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions.

Typical leftist propaganda. It's not an "either/or" situation. We could do a great deal to end crony capitalism without returning to "late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions".
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Call me a dirty authoritarian, but I'd rather have things like rules requiring inspection of food preparation facilities to reduce the likelihood that my sausage contains 15% child limb, 20% ground wood pulp, and 20% rat poop (not existent in 19th C), criminal penalties for lying about what the contents of a product are (mostly absent in the 19th C), and the ability to go to court to sue you when it turns out your product has a 25% chance of exploding in my face. I'm glad that "the market" isn't so free as to allow businesses to defraud and/or harm me in the name of liberty.

The free market allows people to sue in court for harms. It also wouldn't be out of the question that food inspection companies could exist in the market place.

Your comment is why people tend to think of libertarians as closeted anarchists.... not all are, true.... but to act like we had some kind of robust regulatory scheme that made the market unfree in the 19th century is laughably false.

I'm not at all secretive about my anti-statist views.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,489
Reaction score
34,819
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We don't have anything remotely resembling a free market economy in this country. So your comments about the "failure" of "capitalism", are meaningless.


We have the, or one of the, most free markets out there.

We do not have a purely free market, because when we had something that was closer to that, we ended up with price-gouging monopolists and trust combinations, as well as deadly sweatshop grade manufacturing labor.

I question the knowledge, and if I err in that the sanity, of anyone who wants a return to late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions.


Typical leftist propaganda. It's not an "either/or" situation. We could do a great deal to end crony capitalism without returning to "late-19th century virtually-free-market conditions".


I like to include a little more of the chain of replies because it sheds light on what is actually being said. I never said anything like "it is an either/or proposition".

You're complaint - false, btw - was that we don't have "anything like" a free market. I pointed that when we did have "anything like" a free market, the results were terrible for everyone other than those on top.

Your non-response was to say that my comment was an "either/or" proposition. It wasn't. It was pointing out that you seem to want to move too far away from the kind of regulated system that provides some sort of reasonable protection to workers and customers.

If you want more specific comments, you'll have to post more specific criticism of what we have. And I may agree - there are tons of instances of stupid overrregulation.
 

brothern

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,964
Reaction score
2,810
Location
Chicago, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The free market allows people to sue in court for harms.
That's a bad rebuttal. Who the heck cares about suing in court for harms if you got listeria from an employee not cooking the meat well enough?
Lawsuits don't bring grandma back from the dead.

It also wouldn't be out of the question that food inspection companies could exist in the market place.
It doesn't work as intended. Remember the MBSs and CDOs in 2008 for example? When they began collapsing even though the CRAs had handed down AAA ratings (prime investment) on almost half of the securities they rated?

The security issuers understood the system. A company's only prupose is to turn a profit. So they were able to leverage their banks' buying power and the market competitiveness amongst the big three to force inflated ratings. If they didn't get what they wanted from Moody's, they would walk down the street to S&P. Post financial crisis the SEC was forced to jack up the oversight of the CRAs, and of the cases that have been settled, for example, S&P paid out a $1.5 billion dollar fine for their role in 2008. See - S&P Ends Legal Woes Paying $1.5 Billion Fine to U.S., States - Bloomberg

Likewise you'd face the exact same problems. The intended purpose of companies is to turn a profit. Whether bank or "food inspection company." So you'll end up right back where you started. Instead of municipal health departments regulating restaurants; you'll have municipal health departments regulating the inspectors who regulate the restaurants. What's the point of that?
 
Top Bottom