• 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!

Washington to California: Drop dead

phattonez said:
Some just aren't cut out for school. You're just going to throw them to the ditch because their labor isn't worth minimum wage?
Click to expand...
Hell, no.

They can dig the ditch first.
 
RightinNYC said:
Or that they're incompetent/lazy. You don't need any particular "skills" to be able to add $7/hr of value.

The guy who walks my dog makes $20 and the woman who used to clean my apartment made $18. What "skills" were necessary for those jobs? Nothing more than honesty, reliability and the ability to do a job competently.

There are literally millions of jobs out there that don't require any specialized "skills."
Click to expand...

You may be willing to pay that much, but if I have an assembly line and want to hire a guy who's going to screw in light bulbs all day then I'm not going to pay him that much. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me that the most menial of tasks is worth minimum wage.

How are they being denied this opportunity? Are they being forbidden from taking entry level jobs? Are they being banned from accepting job offers that they think are "beneath" them?
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. They are being denied the opportunity to take those jobs because those jobs are destroyed when employers are forced to pay more than the job is worth.
 
RightinNYC said:
If someone is not "cut out" for school and is unable to produce $7/hr worth of value, they should be thankful that they live in a society that no longer experiences natural selection.

That's just pathetic.
Click to expand...

When they can't find a job then they come running for welfare benefits. The vicious cycle of government dependency.
 
phattonez said:
You may be willing to pay that much, but if I have an assembly line and want to hire a guy who's going to screw in light bulbs all day then I'm not going to pay him that much. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me that the most menial of tasks is worth minimum wage.
Click to expand...

If a task isn't worth $7/hr, then it probably doesn't need to be done here.

Note that I'm not really disagreeing with you that the minimum wage is sub-optimal.

That's exactly it. They are being denied the opportunity to take those jobs because those jobs are destroyed when employers are forced to pay more than the job is worth.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't think of many jobs that are not worth $7/hr.
 
Erod said:
Funny how the states in trouble are California, Michigan, New York.....

Which way do those states lean? Hmmm.
Click to expand...
Please. Take a really conservative state, let's say, West Virginia. Their entire state economy is based on welfare, bailouts and federal money.
 
RightinNYC said:
If a task isn't worth $7/hr, then it probably doesn't need to be done here.

Note that I'm not really disagreeing with you that the minimum wage is sub-optimal.



I honestly can't think of many jobs that are not worth $7/hr.
Click to expand...

Well, just because you can't think of many jobs that are not worth $7/hr doesn't mean two mutually consenting individuals (employer and employee) will agree with you, nor does it mean their ability to conduct business with one another needs to be confined by some arbitrary value judgment on the worth of labor as mandated by the government.
 
A friend of mine was raised in Germany,he told me that by 9th or 10th grade the school had a good idea if you were going to make it in college.If not they sent you to a trade school,he is one of the best cabinet,furniture makers I've met.
 
rudedog said:
A friend of mine was raised in Germany,he told me that by 9th or 10th grade the school had a good idea if you were going to make it in college.If not they sent you to a trade school,he is one of the best cabinet,furniture makers I've met.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of value to trade school, but we demean it in this country.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Absolutely right. We should provide completely equal access to training.

Privatize the schools, and let the parents come up with the cash. So long as they pay tuition, they have access.

What can be more equal than that?
Click to expand...

No. Basing the schooling on money is not equal. It is not the children's fault that the parents can't afford a school, and so they shouldn't be handicapped because of it. We should improve our current school system, but privatizing schools is a bad idea. It should be left to the states with minimal national oversight.
 
wbreese91 said:
No. Basing the schooling on money is not equal. It is not the children's fault that the parents can't afford a school, and so they shouldn't be handicapped because of it. We should improve our current school system, but privatizing schools is a bad idea. It should be left to the states with minimal national oversight.
Click to expand...

But the governmental inefficiencies are still going to be there.
 
phattonez said:
But the governmental inefficiencies are still going to be there.
Click to expand...

Better than screwing the poor kids over because they are poor. We need to work to improve our system, but of course you're right. It'll never be perfect.
 
wbreese91 said:
Better than screwing the poor kids over because they are poor. We need to work to improve our system, but of course you're right. It'll never be perfect.
Click to expand...

What's the justification for having the government do it instead of charities?
 
phattonez said:
What's the justification for having the government do it instead of charities?
Click to expand...

IDK, availability maybe? Last year i opened a poll that asked if there was a 0% income tax, would you give more to charity.

The majority of people replied no....

I would love for that to be an option, but its not currently feasible.:2wave:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
IDK, availability maybe? Last year i opened a poll that asked if there was a 0% income tax, would you give more to charity.

The majority of people replied no....

I would love for that to be an option, but its not currently feasible.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Any economist would tell you that the result you got is meaningless. What people say they will do and what people will actually do are often unrelated.

It's only feasible because you haven't experienced it. Remember that this country has only had the income tax for about 100 years now. We were doing fine before it.
 
It seems to me, that California would do well to export all their illegals. It would save some real bucks.
 
Catman said:
It seems to me, that California would do well to export all their illegals. It would save some real bucks.
Click to expand...

If you ship out illegals then you also lose all of that production.

There is no such thing as a certain number of jobs. If you ship them out, it's not as if all of those jobs will be replaced by Americans. Most of those jobs will just be lost.

"Production creates its own demand."
 
phattonez said:
If you ship out illegals then you also lose all of that production.

There is no such thing as a certain number of jobs. If you ship them out, it's not as if all of those jobs will be replaced by Americans. Most of those jobs will just be lost.

"Production creates its own demand."
Click to expand...

You only have to look at the unemployment rate in California to know that those jobs would be filled.
 
Except that's not how an economy works. When those people leave then their demand also leaves. You're assuming that there will be just as much demand by saying that the jobs will be filled. Demand will drop when you ship people off and so the number of jobs will also drop.
 
CA will be fine. They are going to go through some rough times in the near future, but overall I think the state will emerge stronger and better off. I agree that the rest of the US should not have to bail them out though. After all, it's hard to argue against the notion that the CA government has become a little too bloated. When the state prisons are paying for breast augmentation surgery, it's time to rethink how they are spending money. :doh
 
phattonez said:
Except that's not how an economy works. When those people leave then their demand also leaves. You're assuming that there will be just as much demand by saying that the jobs will be filled. Demand will drop when you ship people off and so the number of jobs will also drop.
Click to expand...

I can't follow that, as the number of jobs will be filled by the unemployed.
 
If you have a population of 1000, let's say that 750 people want 1 widget. You need one person to make a widget, and 1 widget is all that person can make. To fill that demand, you'll have 750 people employed to each make a widget. That gives you 25% unemployment.

But then you want to take out a portion of that population. Assume that the 75% demand for those widgets is the same in the population that is leaving and the population that will stay. 200 people are taken out of the population.

Now you have a population of 800 people. 75% of this population wants widgets. Again, you need one person to make a widget, and 75% of 800 is 600. Therefore 600 people will be employed. You have 25% unemployment.

You took out a part of the population, but you still have the same unemployment. Taking out part of the population changed nothing. I told you that you can't ignore the drop in demand that will result. My example is what happens when you factor in the drop in demand.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
If you have a population of 1000, let's say that 750 people want 1 widget. You need one person to make a widget, and 1 widget is all that person can make. To fill that demand, you'll have 750 people employed to each make a widget. That gives you 25% unemployment.

But then you want to take out a portion of that population. Assume that the 75% demand for those widgets is the same in the population that is leaving and the population that will stay. 200 people are taken out of the population.

Now you have a population of 800 people. 75% of this population wants widgets. Again, you need one person to make a widget, and 75% of 800 is 600. Therefore 600 people will be employed. You have 25% unemployment.

You took out a part of the population, but you still have the same unemployment. Taking out part of the population changed nothing. I told you that you can't ignore the drop in demand that will result. My example is what happens when you factor in the drop in demand.
Click to expand...

This is based on two faulty assumptions:

1) California's jobs are only subject to demand from Californians.
2) Illegals produce as much demand as everyone else.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is based on two faulty assumptions:

1) California's jobs are only subject to demand from Californians.
2) Illegals produce as much demand as everyone else.
Click to expand...

The only demand that changes is the demand from illegals. If they are forced back, then their demand will drop because the prices will be more expensive to them compared to when they lived in California.

The analogy wasn't perfect, but it was meant to prove a point. You can't ignore the drop in demand that WILL happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom