• 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!

On the issue of raising the minimum wage

What is your opinion on the plans to increase the minimum wage?

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
THE CHEAPEST WAY IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST WAY

Nickyjo said:
I think most of the benefits dodged by the off the books economy are a good thing, however.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, like those programs on TV that show house "refits" that simply cover over the termites eating away wood-frames?

Here in most of Europe, you can't do that, because after the work is done, you need a permit from the city-inspectors that the house contains no termites. (Moreover, if termites are found even in the resale of a house, then the last-owner can be brought to court to pay for the anti-termite treatment.)

And, I can mention a hundred other such notions that show how "undeclared work" can be dangerous. The "cheapest way" is not always the "best way".

Dangers lurk everywhere in modern life and cheap, cheap, cheap is not on unless you want to tempt danger. (Especially in house rebuilding because 99% of housing in America is out of wood. A small electrical short and an expensive house goes up in flames.)

Wanna live "cheap"? Then die "cheap". One not only loses their money but also their life ...
 
AmNat said:
But a public policy of encouraging all who don’t go to college to go to trade school, would result in their being far too many people qualified for the trades, having the effect of lowering tradesmens’ wages while the majority of trade school graduates would still work at jobs requiring only high school or less.
Click to expand...

Nobody is encouraging anything, but the cost of a Tertiary Education at a state-school is around $12,000 per school-year! At present about 60% of American students enrolled actually graduate from either a 2- or 4-year postsecondary education. (See that number form NCES report here.)

Sorry, but for me that is just not good-enough. Because a Tertiary-education in the US is still too costly even at state or Federally supported schools.

We should be making a professional investment in the future of these children, and not spending 60% of the national Discretionary Budget on the DoD!
 
Lafayette said:
We should be making a professional investment in the future of these children, and not spending 60% of the national Discretionary Budget on the DoD!
Click to expand...

liberal insanity of course, liberals want to make investments in 101 different groups! Far better to let everyone pay for what they will benefit from most. That way there is no waste. Socialism killed 120 million with too much waste.
 
Lafayette said:
And this is a debate forum, where comments should be based NOT ON EMPTY SARCASM but cogent responses.

Get it? If not, go to a Message Board! You'll feel more at home there ...
Click to expand...

I agree with you
 
Lafayette said:
THE CHEAPEST WAY IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST WAY



Yeah, right, like those programs on TV that show house "refits" that simply cover over the termites eating away wood-frames?

Here in most of Europe, you can't do that, because after the work is done, you need a permit from the city-inspectors that the house contains no termites. (Moreover, if termites are found even in the resale of a house, then the last-owner can be brought to court to pay for the anti-termite treatment.)

And, I can mention a hundred other such notions that show how "undeclared work" can be dangerous. The "cheapest way" is not always the "best way".

Dangers lurk everywhere in modern life and cheap, cheap, cheap is not on unless you want to tempt danger. (Especially in house rebuilding because 99% of housing in America is out of wood. A small electrical short and an expensive house goes up in flames.)

Wanna live "cheap"? Then die "cheap". One not only loses their money but also their life ...
Click to expand...

I was in the real estate sales, appraisal, and construction business for 50 years. I've yet to see a transaction involving a loan that didn't involve a termite inspection. I've yet to see any new construction that didn't involve a certificate of occupancy issued by the government. Past building a dog house or laying a sidewalk all construction requires a permit and intermittent inspections.

There doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
 
Lafayette said:
And, I can mention a hundred other such notions that show how "undeclared work" can be dangerous.
Click to expand...

And so can declared work be dangerous, declared work is more expensive and thus deprives many marginal earners of owning a house. 1+1=2
 
noonereal said:
I think you have to be a bit immoral to not support an expanded minimum wage.
Click to expand...

If we don't think the expanded minimum wage will really help anyone in the long run, and is more likely to cause harm, then we would be immoral to support it.
 
noonereal said:
I think you have to be a bit immoral to not support an expanded minimum wage.
Click to expand...

yes, liberals are bigots who believe they are morally superior!!


Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches workers that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.
8) speeds up transition from high density brick and mortar employment to low density on line employment
9) encourages govt to enact similar libsocialist policies to get more votes from the supposed beneficiaries
10) a higher minimum wage encourages higher skilled workers to take jobs that were once held by mimimum wage workers.
 
James972 said:
yes, liberals are bigots who believe they are morally superior!!


Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:
Click to expand...

To be fair, liberals are morally superior to Tumpets. But then again, most any group is morally superior to a Trumpet.

BTW, keeping others down does not make you more successful.
 
Good4Nothin said:
If we don't think the expanded minimum wage will really help anyone in the long run, and is more likely to cause harm, then we would be immoral to support it.
Click to expand...

It would be a hard case to make to oneself but I suppose folks can make themselves believe anything
 
James972 said:
yes, liberals are bigots who believe they are morally superior!!


Reasons intelligent people oppose minimum wage:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches workers that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.
8) speeds up transition from high density brick and mortar employment to low density on line employment
9) encourages govt to enact similar libsocialist policies to get more votes from the supposed beneficiaries
10) a higher minimum wage encourages higher skilled workers to take jobs that were once held by mimimum wage workers.
Click to expand...

Some of this can also be said about labor unions. I would also add, it makes crummy entry level jobs more attractive, and harder to get.
 
noonereal said:
It would be a hard case to make to oneself but I suppose folks can make themselves believe anything
Click to expand...

Read some of the comments, some of them make a good case.
 
Nickyjo said:
Please name the commie governments in the world and attach death tolls to each that come to 120 million. You won't find the US, or Scandinavia or other social democracies among them. Socialism is not responsible for 120 million deaths anymore than capitalism, or monarchy for that matter. Some kings were tyrants, one was named a saint. It's abuses of any political (not economic) system that results in mass murder. Nevertheless, I will open the envelope containing my Social Security check more carefully, in case commie FDR is trying to kill me from beyond the grave.
Click to expand...

You are playing games. Social Security is not communism. The central government extracts an interest-free loan from hard working Americans, then later pays some of it back. That is not communism, and it is not a hand out. We would all retire with more money without it.

If you read the history of the communist revolutions, you would know that the progressive narrative you were taught is not true. You learned that communism was a great idea, but unfortunately bad guys like Stalin hijacked it. No. Communism is an idea that never worked because it cannot work.

If Mother Teresa led a communist revolution, it still would not work, and would still result in mass murder.

And there are no communist economic systems in Scandinavia. All are capitalist, with social programs. As is the USA.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You are playing games. Social Security is not communism. The central government extracts an interest-free loan from hard working Americans, then later pays some of it back. That is not communism, and it is not a hand out. We would all retire with more money without it.

If you read the history of the communist revolutions, you would know that the progressive narrative you were taught is not true. You learned that communism was a great idea, but unfortunately bad guys like Stalin hijacked it. No. Communism is an idea that never worked because it cannot work.

If Mother Teresa led a communist revolution, it still would not work, and would still result in mass murder.

And there are no communist economic systems in Scandinavia. All are capitalist, with social programs. As is the USA.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I never said that communism was a great idea. Marx was right, in that workers of the world DID unite, lose some chains, and by doing so made communist revolution irrelevant. I was talking about socialism, generally of the kind that exists in otherwise capitalist Europe, of the kind that here involves Social Security and Medicare and Obamacare, worker benefits like unemployment insurance and work man's comp. No mass murder required. You are free not to call these socialism, so therefore you might want to tell republicans in the next election cycle to use another epithet. I don't care what it is called, so long as my medical bills don't bankrupt me and I can pay the rent.

As to Social Security, as I understand it, it is an insurance program. My son, 21 pays into it. If he dies at age 30, there may be some survivor benefits, but he largely loses out. I, on the other hand, get far more to help me in my old age than I contributed, so I would not have retired with more money without it, I am getting more money *with* it. A friend, paralyzed since youth, gets disability, much more than he contributed. It is a wonderful program, not a rip off. Keep thinking "insurance." If you don't get into a car accident or your house doesn't catch fire, you don't get your premiums back. Yet you are not considered ripped off. Go figure.

And, by the way, what would you replace it with? The arguments I have seen here from people apparently unclear on the concept, suggest that people could put away money each month and then their investments would provide them with better benefits than SS. You know, real world logic: my parents with a grammar school education could have read over prospectuses from various firms (with no danger of being ripped off, of course) and make the judicious decisions on what returns would suit their lifestyle in retirement. My grandfather, unable to read English, could have sat down on a park bench with his buddies after work digging ditches on and gone over actuarian tables.

No man is an island. Ayn Rand is dead. After collecting Social Security.
 
Nickyjo said:
To clarify, I never said that communism was a great idea. Marx was right, in that workers of the world DID unite, lose some chains, and by doing so made communist revolution irrelevant. I was talking about socialism, generally of the kind that exists in otherwise capitalist Europe, of the kind that here involves Social Security and Medicare and Obamacare, worker benefits like unemployment insurance and work man's comp. No mass murder required. You are free not to call these socialism, so therefore you might want to tell republicans in the next election cycle to use another epithet. I don't care what it is called, so long as my medical bills don't bankrupt me and I can pay the rent.

As to Social Security, as I understand it, it is an insurance program. My son, 21 pays into it. If he dies at age 30, there may be some survivor benefits, but he largely loses out. I, on the other hand, get far more to help me in my old age than I contributed, so I would not have retired with more money without it, I am getting more money *with* it. A friend, paralyzed since youth, gets disability, much more than he contributed. It is a wonderful program, not a rip off. Keep thinking "insurance." If you don't get into a car accident or your house doesn't catch fire, you don't get your premiums back. Yet you are not considered ripped off. Go figure.

And, by the way, what would you replace it with? The arguments I have seen here from people apparently unclear on the concept, suggest that people could put away money each month and then their investments would provide them with better benefits than SS. You know, real world logic: my parents with a grammar school education could have read over prospectuses from various firms (with no danger of being ripped off, of course) and make the judicious decisions on what returns would suit their lifestyle in retirement. My grandfather, unable to read English, could have sat down on a park bench with his buddies after work digging ditches on and gone over actuarian tables.

No man is an island. Ayn Rand is dead. After collecting Social Security.
Click to expand...

Social Security is not socialism. Some people get more than they paid in, and some people can't be trusted to save for retirement. But in general it is probably not a good deal for most.

All the things the central government does for us are not socialism. I agree that we need some kind of protections, since families and communities can no longer be counted on. But ideally those things should be done at the state level. At least then it would not be unconstitutional.

The word "socialism" is being misused by both parties. It really means a system where there is no economic freedom, where citizens are not allowed to own businesses. If you aren't horrified by that idea, then you have not thought through the implications of having all the economic power in the central government.

The idea of socialism depends on the idea that competition is not necessary. Competition between individuals, between businesses, between business and government, etc., is all unnecessary in the socialist philosophy. Competition is not nice, and everyone should always be nice to everyone.

That philosophy is wrong. Competition is just as necessary as cooperation.
 
Good4Nothin said:
If we don't think the expanded minimum wage will really help anyone in the long run, and is more likely to cause harm, then we would be immoral to support it.
Click to expand...

Not just a bit. A lot.

But that is what we have become as a nation. Uncle Sam is hellbent on accumulating riches, and in that sad game, he is amongst the best. (In fact, perhaps China is even better at it given the number of Chinese families that seek to migrate to Canada or the US.)

China should keep their ill-got riches. There are plenty of the truly-poor in that country. The China-story is not yet over and done with.

Neither Uncle Sam's. The sad truth of the poverty-story in the US is this (from WikiPedia): Poverty in the United States

Excerpt:

One organization estimated that in 2015, 13.5% of Americans (43.1 million) lived in poverty. Yet other scholars underscore the number of people in the United States living in "near-poverty," putting the number at around 100 million, or nearly a third of the U.S. population.
Click to expand...

And historically, good-year or bad-year, Uncle Sam is not doing anything to correct the heinous condition. The poverty-ratio in America has remained faithfully constant:
600px-Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate%2C_1959_to_2017.png


At between 10 and 15% since 1965. And we Yanks are wondering why the crime-rate is so constant?
asher-ucr-2016-0922-2.png


Wakey, wakey ... !
 
From here: A World Where Not All Crimes Are Created or Treated Equally

During a 20-year period of economic difficulty which started in Europe in 1975, there was a rise in unemployment in uneducated youth and a rise of theft and violence that rose at the same time. This led to an effort to create more educational opportunities, as multiple studies have shown that higher educational levels lead to lower overall violent crime.

Yet this doesn’t eliminate all crime. In fact, other forms of crime, such as corruption, are more likely in the wealthier classes. This means our focus on poverty tends to be on the amount of violent crime that is produced by low-income communities.

So why is there more violence in low-income areas? It is because there is less of a safety net that is present for those with few or no resources to rely upon. The fight-or-flight mechanism is initiated and when it comes to self-preservation, most people are going to fight for themselves and their loved ones.

If that means violence is required to secure needed resources, then so be it.

This Means There Are Two Key Issues Which Must Be Addressed

In order to solve the problem of poverty as it relates to crime, there are two key issues which must be addressed at the same time.
*Resources must be provided to those in poverty so that basic needs can be met, including any treatment that may be required for mental illness or addiction.
*Those in poverty must receive some level of consistent protection to make sure they do not have what little resources they have become stolen from them by others.

And, for the most part, society agrees with these two points. Where disagreement begins is how to address these issues. You’ll see this often in poverty-stricken areas when someone is asking for help and another person comes by and says, “Just go get a job.”

Unfortunately, it just isn’t that easy.
Click to expand...

And it is ONLY UNCLE SAM that can attend to those objective above in a consistent manner throughout the nation. But anyone looking for solutions from the dorks-in-power at LaLaLand on the Potomac presently are staring at a dark, dark hole ...
 
Good4Nothin said:
Social Security is not socialism. Some people get more than they paid in, and some people can't be trusted to save for retirement. But in general it is probably not a good deal for most.

All the things the central government does for us are not socialism. I agree that we need some kind of protections, since families and communities can no longer be counted on. But ideally those things should be done at the state level. At least then it would not be unconstitutional.

The word "socialism" is being misused by both parties. It really means a system where there is no economic freedom, where citizens are not allowed to own businesses. If you aren't horrified by that idea, then you have not thought through the implications of having all the economic power in the central government.

The idea of socialism depends on the idea that competition is not necessary. Competition between individuals, between businesses, between business and government, etc., is all unnecessary in the socialist philosophy. Competition is not nice, and everyone should always be nice to everyone.

That philosophy is wrong. Competition is just as necessary as cooperation.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree to (mildly) disagree, as many socialists do not define it as the restrictive way you do.
 
Nickyjo said:
I think we can agree to (mildly) disagree, as many socialists do not define it as the restrictive way you do.
Click to expand...

Socialism is always more and more restrictive until 120 million are dead. Look at health care, the more govt gets involved the more it fails and the more govt libsocialists want. THis is how Federal budget just grew from $2-5 trillion with Bernie now thinking we still need an huge huge leap sending. 1+1=2
 
James972 said:
Socialism is always more and more restrictive until 120 million are dead. Look at health care, the more govt gets involved the more it fails and the more govt libsocialists want. THis is how Federal budget just grew from $2-5 trillion with Bernie now thinking we still need an huge huge leap sending. 1+1=2
Click to expand...

Your replies seldom counts more than two lines, none ever seem to be empty of insults and it is always filled with mistakes and typos. It reads exactly as if someone who got pissed answered back with the first nonsense that crossed his mind, not bothering to take into account what other people were saying. Besides parroting talking points, can you make a cogent argument?

''the more govt gets involved the more it fails'' is not exactly a cogent argument, nor an observed fact. Failure is not something we observe. It is something we infer by taking notice of the distance between what we see and some goal that is pursued. You need to be specific and tell us what failure explicitly means. And if we don't just buy what you're saying, you need to go find data to support your diagnosis. The problem actually gets complicated because a governmental intervention is not an abstract force floating in the ether: it is always in the form of programs, policies, and institutions, all of which vary from case to case. No sane person will believe they all have the same effect in spite of being potentially vastly different.
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
Socialism is always more and more restrictive until 120 million are dead. Look at health care, the more govt gets involved the more it fails and the more govt libsocialists want. THis is how Federal budget just grew from $2-5 trillion with Bernie now thinking we still need an huge huge leap sending. 1+1=2
Click to expand...

So all the other governments in the world that offer forms of health care are wrong, LBJ was wrong, Obama was wrong, the American people are wrong, even Trump is wrong, with his plans to get us something better and cheaper than the ACA? Yet strangely, developed countries with government healthcare have healthier people at lower costs. True, you will counter with stories of Europeans havingbto wait 20 years for a chest X-Ray, but despite these horrors, there are no moves to get rid of health care.

Your solution?
 
Nickyjo said:
So all the other governments in the world that offer forms of health care are wrong,
Click to expand...

of course they are wrong which is why they have a much lower standard of living. They should copy us. 1+1=2
 
Nickyjo said:
Your solution?
Click to expand...

obviously the solution is capitalism!. Imagine if automobiles we provided to people the way health care is. You seem incapable of learning. I have taught you this 23 times now. Shall we go for 24?
 
TheEconomist said:
You need to be specific and tell us what failure explicitly means.
Click to expand...

well when libsocialism in USSR and Red China kills 120 million that is a failure. Simple enough for you?
 
TheEconomist said:
Failure is not something we observe.
Click to expand...

when I see FDR prolonging Depression for 16 years and causing a world war I am observing a failure. Is that really over your head??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom