Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
You mean California isn't currently in the throws of economic Armageddon ???
Lol !! You could have fooled me.
They have the Nation's highest poverty rates and count 1/3 of the Nation's Welfare recipients as residents.
And they are the ONLY government that has done this? No other governments in the known world have increasing minimum wage in the last, say, 10 years or so? No other government in the known world HAS minimum wage laws in place?
Again, WHY have you chosen Argentina, amongst the plethora of other equally, or heck, MORE APPLICABLE candidates out there?
Eh....
One income is never going to be enough to properly raise a child, if that income is minimum wage. That's just an impossible dream. It never was, and never will be. Not here, not in Canada, not anywhere, really. Daycare is around 230$ PER WEEK, in CT. FYI.
It's "throes", not "throws".
And perhaps you should find out how Texas compares to California when it comes to level of educational attainment, percentage of population covered by health insurance, homicide rate, and life expectancy. I distinctly remember a 2011 study showing that 41% of ALL teachers in Texas had second jobs...which shows just how much of a priority Texas places on education.
Then again, ol' "we-love-small-guv'mint" Texas is the same one whose governor just signed a bill into law that prevents local city governments from banning fracking within city limits.... I guess y'all love "small guv'mint"...but only when it suits your purposes.
CP, I respect the **** out of you, I regard you as a VERY intelligent person, and a fantastic poster here at DP. If you ran for president, I'd vote for you hands down. Truth.
BUT.
You HAVE to concede that with the way modern technology is going, the mechinization of our labor...that THIS is the direction we NEED to be moving in, no matter how distasteful you or I find it to be, in order to retain some form of capitalism. When robots are doing 90% or more of the work, SOME form of wealth redistribution is going to be needed in order to retain some semblance of capitalism. It just is, IMO.
What are your alternatives?
Remember, robots don't consume. Programs don't consume. And all of this movement towards automation is to REMOVE human workers, due to their inherent costs.
So don't cop out with the "Those workers will move to other industries" meme. I assure you, it's NOT going to play out like that this time around,
and it's already been beaten to death in other threads, threads which I believe you have participated in, and even, by silence, conceded. Correct me if I'm wrong, lol.
I simply don't see any way around this. It's this, or crash, and face some sort french style revolution, which I'd rather not.
Ok, there's Venezuela who've also implemented many of the same destructive left wing policies that people like YOU claim will solve our economyic issues.
They'reve made outsourcing illegal and have passed laws that protect the worker to the point where its nearly impossible to fire a unproductive employee.
Now, they currently have the lowest productivity rates on the Continent and foreign investment has all but dried up completely.
And why do you discount Argentina as a example of failed progressive policies ?
Because its to good of a example ?
One income is never enough...but it's a matter of degree, isn't it? Just because we can't make it "enough", what's wrong with making it better than "nowhere close to enough"?
Counter point...what will dems say when increases to minimum wage don't result in economic paradise?
Then why is Unemployment in Seattle only 4% home of the highest minimum wage in the USA???Government mandated cost increases om businesses is just fodder for leftist idiots who have no idea how to grow economies.
These Cities aren't " getting it " at all.
Knee jerk simplton solutions that in the end drive out investment and jobs is one of the reasons California is currently home to 1/3 of the Nation's Welfare recipients.
cpwill;1064638639]thanks bro. I look forward to calling you on that.
1. I reject the idea that robots are going to replace all workers. That claim has been being made for centuries now, with as-of-yet no results. The combined ingenuity of humanity is incredible at putting un or under-utilized resources (such as labor) to making a profit. Machines change the nature of our workforce, and they change demand for particular kinds of labor. They aren't going to kick 90% of workers out of a job.
2. That being said, I agree that - as a political matter, some form of wealth redistribution is necessary in order to increase stability.
2a. However, a minimum wage isn't a means of wealth redistribution. It's just a price-floor. One that serves to keep our lowest-educated and lowest-skilled potential workers trapped out of the market. There are people whose value-added is not $15 an hour. A $15 an hour MW doesn't redistribute skills to them, or redistribute work experience. It also doesn't redistribute money. All it does is make them structurally unemployable.
I am mid post on this, so I'll address that in the other thread, once I read it, lol. Too many windows open, my old POS computer might decide to stop.
We still have black smiths, they just dress different, and are called machinists. And there are far fewer of them. Same with coach builders. Etc. And while we don't have an issue with out of work people in these trades (well, not really), that is because automation wasn't around for this time period. I think you are severely underestimating the functionality of current technology. You are comparing economic movements of yesteryear to today. And that doesn't work, because the conditions are nowhere near the same.Sort of. It's very similar to the automobile in that regard. We had multiple large industries that were built around the assumption that the horse would continue to be the main form of transportation - leather workers, farriers, vets, stables, poop-scoopers, you name it. Put out of work when the automobile came along and took over American society. But are we dominated today by hordes of jobless blacksmiths and horse-trainers? No. Those workers were reallocated to other tasks once their labor became available.
That's what the market does when a resource (such as labor) becomes available - it allocates it to a productive end. So long as some bright fool doesn't come along with a jacked up idea for a price floor on that item that makes it prohibitive to use.
A book. By two authors. Well, short of citing some stuff from this book, this is just more of the same, comparing past events to current ones, even though the variables are no where near the same. I mean, I get what you are saying. I simply think you are not respecting the distance we have come, technologically. Deep blue defeated Gary Kasparov.Ah yes, of course..... this time it's always different.... because it is. Got it.
Current demand =/= current supply. That's what this is all about. Manual labor jobs being down by machines, reducing demand for humans for such work.:shrug: sometimes I do get bored and leave threads. I don't think I've ever conceded in an argument about whether or not there would be a demand for low-income labor were it allowed.
Ahhh, Paul Krugman, poor guy. I wonder if it's a sore subject? Does it come up at dinner parties?Simply because you lack imagination to come up with new ways to use low-income workers does not mean that the aggregate ingenuity of 330 million people will. You are pretty smart, but you aren't that smart - none of us are:
I lived in Seattle for 3 years, and didn't make that much, but I always paid my rent on time, put food on the table, and bought extras when needed, so you don't know dick about who can afford what, you make your bills, you wanna drive a 20 thousand dollar car, wear suits all the time, and shop , shop , shop, and live over your means of course you will have problems anywhere, you have to know how to budget.......You do know that's because minimum wage workers in those cities can't afford to live there..... right?
:lol: indeed. Freedom is Slavery. Trust The Collective.
I lived in Seattle for 3 years, and didn't make that much, but I always paid my rent on time, put food on the table, and bought extras when needed, so you don't know dick about who can afford what, you make your bills, you wanna drive a 20 thousand dollar car, wear suits all the time, and shop , shop , shop, and live over your means of course you will have problems anywhere, you have to know how to budget..
Of course rent will be higher for a condo in New York city, then living in some cesspool toxic trailer park in Redneck Mississippi, because there ain't **** there, and no way to make real money, you get what you pay for in life, you turds on the right should know that..
Newsflash that's why they call it a living wage, you go where the money is, not some piece of **** poverty ridden red state where the median income is too low for even a rat to live on, Mississipp, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, all **** states where poverty is rampant..
No, because it reeks of cherry picking.
In other words, Fenton, you are citing outliers. And I think you know it. It's OK, though. I'm not seriously debating you, I'm just killing time till CP responds to me post.
We're not saying it will. What we are looking for is to have something close to a minimum wage, where a single parent can raise a child on one income and have enough time left over to actually spend some time with that child instead of only seeing the child in between rushing from one job to another.
You be the spelling police, and offer up totally irelevent talking points, and Ill continue to expose the fallacies of left wing solutions, okay ?
Because ALMOST enough isn't much better than "No where close to enough".
Why should we be incentivizing that lifestyle? It's absurd to think that making it more comfortable to be a single parent will somehow reduce the number of single parents in this country. We need more stable families, not less.
So if you want more stable families, raise the standard of living. All the proof you could want is in all the rich and the poor nations of the world.
Doesn't that depend on the point of view of those who are poor? For instance, try eating (much less feeding a child) on $29/week in food stamps because your minimum-wage job barely pays the rent/utilities...and that's all before clothing and public transportation. Even a one-dollar-per-hour raise makes a huge difference in your life, and in the life of your child.
Good news for the fight against income inequality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/u...to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour.html?_r=0
The nation’s second-largest city voted on Tuesday to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020 from the current $9 an hour, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far in the national push to raise the minimum wage. The increase — which the Los Angeles City Council passed in a 14-1 vote — comes as workers across the country are rallying for higher wages, and several large companies, including Facebook and Walmart, have moved to raise their lowest wages. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same. In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wage by referendum. The impact is likely to be particularly strong in Los Angeles, where, according to some estimates, more than 40 percent of the city’s work force earns less than $15 an hour.
yep and we will see how many businesses stay in business and how many low skill workers lose their jobs. it will be great as automated ordering machines will pick up in business.
ol wait they don't have the skills to do that job.
no more bag boys go bag your own groceries.
more automated checkouts.
here I thought liberals weren't against poor people so why would you price them out of a job?
We're not saying it will. What we are looking for is to have something close to a minimum wage, where a single parent can raise a child on one income and have enough time left over to actually spend some time with that child instead of only seeing the child in between rushing from one job to another.
If you want children to be raised well, then the parents must be able to have time to spend with them. And no, don't go down the route of "Well they shouldn't-a had the kid to begin with"...because it happens no matter what conservatives think should happen otherwise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?