• 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!

Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour

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.

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.
 
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?

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 ?
 
Last edited:
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.

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"?
 
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.


You be the spelling police, and offer up totally irelevent talking points, and Ill continue to expose the fallacies of left wing solutions, okay ?
 
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.

:D thanks bro. I look forward to calling you on that.

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.

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.

What are your alternatives?

:D I am delighted you asked, because it gives me yet another chance to hawk my plan to lift every single American citizen out of poverty, reduce costs to the federal, state, and local social safety net systems and make our tax revenues more stable.

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.

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.

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,

Ah yes, of course..... this time it's always different.... because it is. Got it.

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.

: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.

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.

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:

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

- Paul Krugman, 1998​
 
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 ?

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.
 
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"?

Because ALMOST enough isn't much better than "No where close to enough".
 
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.
Then why is Unemployment in Seattle only 4% home of the highest minimum wage in the USA???

Boeing, Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, Costco, Amazon, Starbucks, Tmobile, Seattle Seahawks, all economic powerhouses, I don't see them packing up and leaving, they are thriving I know I lived there, I don't see jack **** in comparison in the Red states..

The ones that ARE NOT GETTING IT are the retarded red states that own the most poverty in the USA, where welfare is rampant you don't believe me google it simpleton..

You wanna play the numbers game with me FINE, TexASS, still tops the census list of highest uninsured rates in the country, with nearly 30% of the folks there without help when they get sick, which is only a matter of time, the reason I bring up TexASS is because it's a right wingers wet dream..

Oh and BTW THE LAST TIME Washington had a Repuke Governor was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy back in 1979!!!!!

What the **** good does it do to have a job if you have no way to help yourself if you get sick??:lamo
 
Last edited:
cpwill;1064638639]:D thanks bro. I look forward to calling you on that.

You'll never have to. You are honest and forthright, even if I disagree with you on some stuff. I'll take an honest stance I disagree with all day over a lie I DO agree with. If that makes sense.



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.

I don't know, man. Programming has gotten downright scary in how eloquent it can be. Maybe 90% is a bit high...but even as low as, say, 70% of the work force is absolutely catastrophic, regardless if you're supply side OR demand side. I mean, it now takes, what, 20 people to churn out about 50 corvettes PER DAY. And that's a practical SUPER CAR. We are ever evolving out machines. Now, AI? I don't know about that. But does it take an AI to be able to do any sort of repetitive task? Nope. Just increasingly complex algorithms. I agree that SOME workers will find work else where, ESPECIALLY those with specialties currently NOT in demand...CREATIVES. All these kids with liberal arts degrees? They are, IMO, the future wage earners. Because crfeativity can not be automated. Yeah, a program can write an amalgamation of cords stolen from other symphonies, but it's not going to create anything new. It's not gonna go from realism, to minimalism, to cubism, etc, in terms of visual arts. That takes the spark that only we have on this planet, IMO. But a consumer economy can't survive on a bunch of artists.
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.​


What else is there? I balk at the idea of a maximum wage, which would be FAR more effective. To me, that's much more disgusting. How else do we FORCE someone to take LESS pay in order to give out MORE pay to their workers? Because that is what this is about.


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.​
 
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.
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.

Ah yes, of course..... this time it's always different.... because it is. Got it.
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.


: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.
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.
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:
Ahhh, Paul Krugman, poor guy. I wonder if it's a sore subject? Does it come up at dinner parties?
So, I don't doubt that there are people out there that will think of things to make people do for money. And I don't doubt that they will have the money to offer to make those people do those things.
My question is, is that the best way to proceed?
 
.....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..
 

I can't seem to post in the Loft, however, I will note that after going through the thread, it DOES seem promising. I know you balk at taxing capital gains, but doing so will eliminate one avenue for tax dodgers. I don't truly care TO tax capital gains, however, failure to do so will just result in avoidance by those that can afford to utilize it. I call that the Warren Buffet dodge.

I will trust that the numbers work out, in terms of income vs spending trajectories. And it solves the issue of making more and bringing home less at certain pay scales, which I am currently dealing with. I get paid more than I did a year ago, and bring home less. Which has prompted me to simply put more into my 401K, lol.
 
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..

Funny story, though.


All of us North East liberals are going to be RETIRING in those states, because the money we MADE goes a LOT farther there.
 
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.

Cherry picking ?

Its absolutely relevant.

Youre the one cherry picking by ignoring just how destructive policies like these are AFTER THEY'VE BEEN APPLIED in places like Argentina.
 
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.

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.
 
You be the spelling police, and offer up totally irelevent talking points, and Ill continue to expose the fallacies of left wing solutions, okay ?

It's "Grammar Nazi" to you. It's "irrelevant", not "irelevant", and "left wing" should be hyphenated, i.e. "left-wing". That, and you're the one who brought up the shining example of Texas - all I did was point out how Texas wasn't the shining example you seem to think it is.
 
Because ALMOST enough isn't much better than "No where close to enough".

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.
 
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.

Have you ever wondered why it is that the poorer a nation is, the higher the birth rate of that nation? The higher a nation's standard of living, the lower the birth rate. Look at all the nations of the world around you - there's your proof?

And why is this? Because everyone wants something enjoyable to do, and when you're dirt poor, there's not too much in the way distractions to keep you from chasing that girl. And yes, this is the way it works - I've spent a lot of time among people a lot poorer than most Americans...and what else have they got to do? What else can they afford to do? Having sex with a willing partner is lots of fun...and it's FREE.

And assuming you are a guy, you know as well as I do that a stiff woodie has no conscience - most young men will lie through their teeth to get naked with that girl. They can't afford a computer, they can't afford to go to a movie, they can't afford a car, they can't afford to go to a ball game...but they sure as heck can afford to hop in the sack with that wide-eyed girl who's just as horny, who's hanging on his every promise that he's going to be there forever for her.

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.
 
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.

Would you kindly tell me why Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, and a number of other countries have ~20% or higher population of single parents? All of which have substantial safety nets and minimum wages higher than ours. I wouldn't call any of those countries low on the standard of living list.

http://i.imgur.com/pOcH3iW.png?1
 
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.

I like that you use food as an example.


Question. Is ALMOST enough food to survive as good as no where near enough food to survive?
 
Pay your employee too little... the government and tax payer subsidizes these wages to help make ends meet. Force too many small businesses to cough up higher wages, risk the possibility of layoffs/bankruptcy.

My motto? If your business model in a 1st world country relies on slave wages and tax payer subsidies for your employees to make a profit, you deserve to fail.

Simple fact of the matter is that automation and the integration of the world into the labor market is lowering wages all around and making it more expensive for American's to live. If we want to continue calling ourselves a 1st world country, we need to get with it. We're a consumption economy, fueled by spending. When the poor and middle class have more discretionary income in their pockets, everyone wins.
 
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?
 
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?

And in return they will price themselves out of business. With less workers means less money flowing through the economy. It all comes full circle. If your business model relies on paying your employees inadequate wages in relation to cost of living, your business model sucks.
 
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.

umm yea about that. we can't justify paying that person 15 dollars an hour so we are going to automate their position and now they don't have a job.
of course they can try and find another but then again they don't have the skills to earn 15 dollars an hour so no one will hire them.

good idea. other cities in CA that have implemented this including seattle are seeing business close down and owners drop because
they can't afford the wage hikes.

the cost to their businesses are just to much.
 
Back
Top Bottom