• 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!

What should the minimum wage be, or should we not have one at all?

Minimum wage should be what the Mexican day laborers standing in front of Home Depot will work for. Seems fair to me.
 
danielpalos said:
Yet, wealth somehow doubled for the Richest under our form of Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Wealth doubled for a a lot of people under capitalism even famous socialists like AOC and Bernie Sanders!
 
danielpalos said:
Wages for the Poor didn't double.
Click to expand...

Most did , because they moved up up to higher quintiles. you seem to think the same people stay stuck in those lower quintiles .
They don't.

If this was India and you were fixed to a certain caste by birth you might have a valid point. But it's not , so you don't .

You want to double your income , do it. Nobody's stopping you.
 
KLATTU said:
Most did , because they moved up up to higher quintiles. you seem to think the same people stay stuck in those lower quintiles .
They don't.

If this was India and you were fixed to a certain caste by birth you might have a valid point. But it's not , so you don't .

You want to double your income , do it. Nobody's stopping you.
Click to expand...

lol. With Institutional tax cut economics?

Nothing but socialized wealth redistribution on a national basis, for the Richest.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
 
KLATTU said:
I'm not following?

what is institutional tax cut economics?
What is socialized wealth distribution for the richest?
Click to expand...

Public policy is doing that on a national basis via that form of "socialism".

The Richest saw their private wealth double while the Poor saw their national, public Debt become more burdensome.
 
danielpalos said:
Public policy is doing that on a national basis via that form of "socialism".

The Richest saw their private wealth double while the Poor saw their national, public Debt become more burdensome.
Click to expand...

Well since 44 % have no Fed tax liability ,that isn't happening.
And never will. The groups that will be paying most of that debt will be the top 20 % .
 
cpwill said:
If I wished to begin name-calling, I would simply begin name-calling. I labeled the weird obsession with income inequality as such because I perceived and continue to perceive it as such - and it is absolutely a hall-mark of today's left. I do not understand why anyone would think that someone who is wealthy becoming wealthier somehow invalidates a less-wealthy person also becoming wealthier.
Click to expand...
It appears, my friend, that you are in thrall to certain economic assumptions and theories to such an extent that you can be easily manipulated. Moreover, you reject out of hand conceptions that are foreign to you. Clearly you do not understand the causes or corrosive effects of severe income inequality socially and economically. I'm not sure I have the energy or desire to engage in the sisyphian task of providing that education. A closed mind is a terrible waste. Be well and proceed in ignorance.
 
NWRatCon said:
It a Clearly you do not understand the causes or corrosive effects of severe income inequality socially and economically. .
Click to expand...

Because there are none. Bezos and Gates being rich makes others better off. They don't stop anybody from making money because of their own wealth . It's a BS issue and always has been
 
Let's go back to basics: What is a "minimum wage"? It is a floor which we, as a society, believe is the absolute least amount of value labor can be minimized to. (It is not the same as a "living wage", which is tied to the cost of living in some way.) A minimum wage is like the penny, economically - the smallest amount of value that the Mint believes is relevant for circulating currency. Irreducible. All other wages are built off of what that standard is, just as all other denominations are built off the penny. The living wage is more like the dollar in this way, as its "value" fluctuates based on the conditions in the economy - inflation, relative currency comparisons (strong or weak), and the general health of the economy.

I think it appropriate that there be a federal minimum wage and that it is also appropriate for States and other political subdivisions to establish their own. As long as we remember what it is, the rest is negotiable.
 
NWRatCon said:
Let's go back to basics: What is a "minimum wage"? It is a floor which we, as a society, believe is the absolute least amount of value labor can be minimized to. (It is not the same as a "living wage", which is tied to the cost of living in some way.) A minimum wage is like the penny, economically - the smallest amount of value that the Mint believes is relevant for circulating currency.
Click to expand...

If that were true then you wouldn't need criminal laws preventing unskilled people from working for a wage below the price floor.
 
aociswundumho said:
If that were true then you wouldn't need criminal laws preventing unskilled people from working for a wage below the price floor.
Click to expand...

That is an incredibly stupid, irrelevant and non-responsive comment. It makes no sense. Don't bother to respond. I have standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom