• 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?

danielpalos said:
It is about Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and unemployment compensation for that in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

And that relates to the thread how? (What should the minimum wage be, or should we not have one at all?)
 
danielpalos said:
Would we need a statutory minimum wage if persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed instead?
Click to expand...

Would we need a minimum wage if we adopted a universal basic income? A good question, but is it related?

As to your question: yes. The correlation is so tenuous as to be undetectable. I could, however argue that it would undercut employment altogether to have unqualified unemployment compensation. Would you contend that it would be tantamount to a minimum wage? (I'm trying to get a more fulsome discussion.)
 
danielpalos said:
so what. that only means something to the "economically challenged" right wing. The rest of us know, equal protection of the law can correct for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner with existing legal and physical infrastructure on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. :shock:
Click to expand...

Apparently, the executive suites of corporate America must all be "economically challended," because if they can cut costs by eliminating bodies they do it. And I have to admit that I can't make any sense out of your statement. When it comes to the laws of economics, I never heard the term "equal protection of the law." I saw that in a constitutional law class, but never in Econ 101 or 102. :doh
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
Are you claiming everyone on the street now, wants to be there for free under our form of Capitalism?
Click to expand...

What I said was "No one has to be on the street, if they don't want to be." Are they making an effort to get off the street, or just waiting on government to provide their wants?
 
danielpalos said:
Perhaps, it is merely a loss of confidence in the "balancing effect".

Click to expand...


Why are you referring to a video about wealth distribution, in a thread about income?
 
NWRatCon said:
Would we need a minimum wage if we adopted a universal basic income? A good question, but is it related?

As to your question: yes. The correlation is so tenuous as to be undetectable. I could, however argue that it would undercut employment altogether to have unqualified unemployment compensation. Would you contend that it would be tantamount to a minimum wage? (I'm trying to get a more fulsome discussion.)
Click to expand...

Should we have have a statutory minimum wage in that case?

I believe the correlation is a self-evident truth under Capitalism. It could be said that there is no unemployment under capitalism only underpayment. Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can solve for simple poverty. Yes, it would be a form of minimum wage but not a statutory minimum wage. Voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade is Capitalism.
 
Ahlevah said:
Apparently, the executive suites of corporate America must all be "economically challended," because if they can cut costs by eliminating bodies they do it. And I have to admit that I can't make any sense out of your statement. When it comes to the laws of economics, I never heard the term "equal protection of the law." I saw that in a constitutional law class, but never in Econ 101 or 102. :doh
Click to expand...

The point is, with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation for simply being naturally unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States the Poor could stay out of poverty much easier and our homeless problem would be a lot less severe.
 
Individual said:
What I said was "No one has to be on the street, if they don't want to be." Are they making an effort to get off the street, or just waiting on government to provide their wants?
Click to expand...

1929 already happened. Are you claiming everyone who wanted a job could get one, then?
 
danielpalos said:
1929 already happened. Are you claiming everyone who wanted a job could get one, then?
Click to expand...

The year is 2019, those with money are not seeing their wealth disappear, so they have money to spend. Find something to do that enables you to entice them to spend.
 
Individual said:
The year is 2019, those with money are not seeing their wealth disappear, so they have money to spend. Find something to do that enables you to entice them to spend.
Click to expand...

Some people made money in 1929.

Equal protection of the law is in our several Constitutions.
 
Individual said:
The year is 2019, those with money are not seeing their wealth disappear, so they have money to spend. Find something to do that enables you to entice them to spend.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer his question.
Nice dodge.

And people with money in 1929 weren't seeing their wealth disappear either, until it started to.
Then some of them began taking flying lessons from bank windows without an airplane for some strange reason, and suddenly almost a third of the workforce were suddenly unemployed.

Today more Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy.
Forty percent of working Americans don't have enough to deal with a four hundred dollar emergency...WORKING Americans.

And that is despite what is considered "full employment" by the BLS. (<4% unemployment)

Let us both know when you are willing to answer his question:
Are you claiming everyone who wanted a job could get one in 1929 after the Wall Street crash?

Are you trying to claim that all persons who are unable to make ends meet are just lazy bums who don't work hard enough?
Are you pretending that forty percent of the country just decided to be lazy bums because it's fun and they think they can get free stuff?

"FREE STUFF"....a Frank Luntz buzz word used in futile attempts to shut down critical thinking and invalidate all debate by intolerant low information partisan hacks.

Who is Frank Luntz? He's your pimp-daddy who programs all of your thinking for you.

Or...as Kobie put it, more colorfully:

Kobie said:
THIS asshole. You want a prime candidate for the main reason our political discourse is in the sewer, look no further than Frank Luntz. A completely soulless shill whose sole meaning in life is to find buzzwords that make liberals look bad and conservatives look good. The foremost example of a paid, professional liar.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to dodge, deflect and divert critical thinking and rational debate with Luntz's blunt little tools?
Are you incapable of thinking beyond Frank Luntz buzz words?
Do you have ANY original thoughts at all, or are you just another automaton who repeats what he is told to repeat?

Secret_talkingpoints.jpg
 
danielpalos said:
The middle class in not on the street.
Click to expand...

Au contraire...that is precisely why the middle class is shrinking.

That's precisely why homeless rates are exploding, because ON TOP OF the chronically homeless, you know, the actual bums, criminals, addicts and mentally ill, we now have economically displaced homeless, individuals and even entire families, some of whom even still work, who are living in cars, tents, on the street, in encampments, in shelters and in crumbling broken down RV's.

Many of these economically displaced homeless are from what used to be considered middle class. Some were evicted from rentals, some were foreclosed upon and many were laid off or otherwise rendered jobless, and had to scramble to survive.

So yes, many parts of the FORMER middle class ARE "on the street", and they are straining municipalities all across the country to the breaking point because they were already barely able to deal with their chronically homeless population to begin with.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Au contraire...that is precisely why the middle class is shrinking.

That's precisely why homeless rates are exploding, because ON TOP OF the chronically homeless, you know, the actual bums, criminals, addicts and mentally ill, we now have economically displaced homeless, individuals and even entire families, some of whom even still work, who are living in cars, tents, on the street, in encampments, in shelters and in crumbling broken down RV's.

Many of these economically displaced homeless are from what used to be considered middle class. Some were evicted from rentals, some were foreclosed upon and many were laid off or otherwise rendered jobless, and had to scramble to survive.

So yes, many parts of the FORMER middle class ARE "on the street", and they are straining municipalities all across the country to the breaking point because they were already barely able to deal with their chronically homeless population to begin with.
Click to expand...

How can that be? These are the Best of Tax Cut economics times.
 
danielpalos said:
How can that be? These are the Best of Tax Cut economics times.
Click to expand...

:lamo - - Yeah our "booming" economy.
Sure, if you're making more than $140k a year or more, in many parts of the country it probably feels "booming".

But the average income in this country is in the mid-five figures, and HAS BEEN for decades.
A six figure income is distinctly upper middle class, the top 35 percent.

If we consider business and society’s gain in having a productive, trained worker, we have shifted the costs on to the individual, which is an incredibly regressive “tax” that hurts the poor and the middle class. Why would we want to support that?
Shifting these costs to the individual is guaranteed to yield a generation of uneducated and untrained people, in other words, a generation of big box store greeters, fast food servers and nursing home orderlies who empty bed pans for a living.

And it's a surefire recipe for making a middle class become extinct.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
:lamo - - Yeah our "booming" economy.
Sure, if you're making more than $140k a year or more, in many parts of the country it probably feels "booming".

But the average income in this country is in the mid-five figures, and HAS BEEN for decades.
A six figure income is distinctly upper middle class, the top 35 percent.

If we consider business and society’s gain in having a productive, trained worker, we have shifted the costs on to the individual, which is an incredibly regressive “tax” that hurts the poor and the middle class. Why would we want to support that?
Shifting these costs to the individual is guaranteed to yield a generation of uneducated and untrained people, in other words, a generation of big box store greeters, fast food servers and nursing home orderlies who empty bed pans for a living.

And it's a surefire recipe for making a middle class become extinct.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can help with that dilemma.
 
danielpalos said:
Income tends to Be wealth for the Poorest.
Click to expand...

That's nonsensical. The point is that a person can have a relatively high income and no wealth if he decides to have 8 children, or spends it all on hookers and blow, so to speak.

So if you want to have a meaningful conversation about financial inequality in the context of whether there should be a minimum wage, it should be about income inequality, not wealth inequality.
 
Tlrmln said:
That's nonsensical. The point is that a person can have a relatively high income and no wealth if he decides to have 8 children, or spends it all on hookers and blow, so to speak.

So if you want to have a meaningful conversation about financial inequality in the context of whether there should be a minimum wage, it should be about income inequality, not wealth inequality.
Click to expand...

Why has wealth for the Richest doubled but not wages for the Poorest?
 
danielpalos said:
Why has wealth for the Richest doubled but not wages for the Poorest?
Click to expand...

Because there hasn't been a dramatic increase in demand for the kind of labor that "the poorest" do. If anything, there's only been a decrease because of automation.
 
danielpalos said:
Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can help with that dilemma.
Click to expand...

Not in the long term.
And we're facing a long term problem.
China is investing hundreds of billions in long term technical training.
India is cranking out over ONE MILLION highly trained advanced robotic and artificial intelligence personnel every single year.

We crank out NOTHING, because we do not (apparently) consider investing in a highly skilled and trained workforce to be essential.
 
Tlrmln said:
Because there hasn't been a dramatic increase in demand for the kind of labor that "the poorest" do. If anything, there's only been a decrease because of automation.
Click to expand...

Yet, corporate welfare is alive and well and even bails out the Richest who are too rich to fail even under our form of Capitalism. Equal protection of the law is all the Poor really need under our form of Capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom