|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that wasn't the question asked (and that'd get you to just under $13 by 2027) It was, though? flashman posted:Once you adjust for inflation and consider the decade of implementation 15 dollars is not much higher than it has been in the past?
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Red Minjo posted:It was, though? Yeah, and the comparison doesn't make sense without considering the implementation time in the first place either, since the discussion is specifically over reaching a minimum wage of $15 in 10 years, not right now. So even if flashman wasn't referring to the decade of implementation (which he of course was) a non-disingenuous reply would be one that does take into account the implementation time. And then there's also the fact (mentioned in the part you quoted) where he says $15 is "not much higher", so basically he was completely correct from the beginning. But actually being accurate or finding solutions to these problems isn't the goal at all, is it? WhiskeyJuvenile(/JeffersonClay, etc)'s goal is just to be relentless contrary against people they have a gut feeling are dumb for, uh, reasons, I guess. Their arguments in this thread transparently reveal a lack of concern for actually achieving positive change (for reasons I've articulated earlier in this thread*), and instead are just contrarianism against people they perceive to be dumb. *Just to reiterate a bit, the overwhelming majority of their posts are just contrarianism towards other people. And in some cases they're even correct about certain topics, but the way they argue makes it abundantly clear that they don't actually care much about the problems in question. Because if they did, the responses would be along the lines of "I think a better way to deal with this problem is Y, because (reasons)", or at least something indicating acknowledgement that the status quo is unacceptably bad and change needs to come sooner rather than later (if at all possible). In most cases, this stems from the fact that people with relatively happy, financially stable lives naturally fear negative change more than they desire positive change (since they have more to lose than they have to gain), which ultimately leads to a strong bias in favor of the status quo and against any particular change. Potential future pain is valued above current existing pain. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is particularly true when the devil you know isn't that bad. There's probably a lot more than this that could be written about the psychology behind this sort of ideology.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
I think the crux of this particular issue is that these neoliberal scum don't see any value in improving the material outcomes in people's lives because they're incapable of empathy, or are bastards of some form. There is no convincing them because they fundamentally cannot think in such a way that would be conducive to improving people's lives instead of jerking off over GDP statistics.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Related to the minimum wage discussion, so the GOP has the most political power since 1928, the income inequality in the country is almost near Depression-era levels, various destructive economic policies will be implemented (major tax cuts, possible trade wars, gutting various financial and business regulations, stripping worker protections, etc.), severe cuts to welfare programs, all this is probably going to accelerate us into another Depression and a massive paroxysm of violence. Add in nixing of political norms that allow more autocracy and a growing authoritarian police state, it's something out of a dystopia novel. Do I have this right? Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 02:33 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Related to the minimum wage discussion, so the GOP has the most political power since 1928, the income inequality in the country is almost near Depression-era levels, various destructive economic policies will be implemented (major tax cuts, possible trade wars, gutting various financial and business regulations, stripping worker protections, etc.), all this is probably going to accelerate us into another Depression. Comparing the coming depression to the great depression actually downplays the coming depression as I understand it. All those things you listed + like 6 bubbles popping at once will be fuckin rad.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Comparing the coming depression to the great depression actually downplays the coming depression as I understand it. I just added that "Add in nixing of political norms that allow more autocracy and a growing authoritarian police state, it's something out of a dystopia novel." But you are right though that the comparison between both is silly, it seems like where we are heading is going to be an incomparable catastrophe. Oh and throw in any ecological disasters on top of that. I'm desperately trying to find things I can be optimistic about but there ain't much.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that wasn't the question asked (and that'd get you to just under $13 by 2027) Exactly.. not much higher than it has been in the past. It's not some sort of Earth shattering raise that has never been seen before, it's like 15 percent higher than it has been. flashman fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:
Our deaths are coming soon, and will be quick
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In most cases, this stems from the fact that people with relatively happy, financially stable lives naturally fear negative change more than they desire positive change (since they have more to lose than they have to gain), which ultimately leads to a strong bias in favor of the status quo and against any particular change. Potential future pain is valued above current existing pain. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is particularly true when the devil you know isn't that bad. There's probably a lot more than this that could be written about the psychology behind this sort of ideology. This is literally and exactly why the current system is so terrible. Wealth translates so easily to power that the only people who have the power to fix wealth imbalances are the very same people who gain from that imbalance and have the most to fear from a correction. The system is built in such a way that it will never be fixed. Without that fatal flaw the system could be workable, but a system that discourages correction is a loving terrible system on that basis alone. If neoliberals really believed in capitalism they'd be scrambling for a way to politically dis-empower capital right loving quick so some kind of tolerable balance is achievable. But they don't. And they won't. Neoliberalism is just a justification for why the people with money and power deserve to have that money and power. They'll cling to every scrap of power and every scrap of wealth out of fear of losing any of it. The Democrats have been at it so long they are even losing the ability to pretend they're trying. Unfortunately for them they can only keep stomping on the left and its ideas for so long before it eventually won't even be an ideological battle, just pure reaction to the things they are doing and the way people's lives are going. And then... gently caress knows what rises out of that chaos. It's so loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Do I have this right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2L1-TgfKb4
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Tom Perez Bombs Speech, California Dem Chair Tells Protesters ‘Shut the F**k Up’ http://observer.com/2017/05/tom-perez-california-democratic-party-convention/ https://twitter.com/davidsiders/status/865738858326917121 quote:The rift within the Democratic Party was on full display at the California Democratic Party Convention on May 19 in Sacramento, California. Progressives joined members of National Nurses United, protesting the Democratic Party establishment’s refusal to support single payer healthcare system. Rather than follow through with Democratic rhetoric that healthcare is a human right, establishment Democrats have responded to voters by scolding and attacking them. tl:dr Democrats are a waste Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 05:58 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Tom Perez Bombs Speech, California Dem Chair Tells Protesters ‘Shut the F**k Up’ We're going to win, and we're going to ensure that sociopaths like JC vote GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
How's the circle jerk going?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
I've seen multiple interviews with either disillusioned or hopeful trump voters now that have said they were hoping for single payer based on his campaign rhetoric and were disappointed by the ahca as a result. Replace the centrists with them imo.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
flashman posted:I've seen multiple interviews with either disillusioned or hopeful trump voters now that have said they were hoping for single payer based on his campaign rhetoric and were disappointed by the ahca as a result. Replace the centrists with them imo. Some solid evidence you got there
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
The kind of people who love single payer as long as it's named after a white man are the kind of people you build a coalition around.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Despera posted:The kind of people who love single payer as long as it's named after a white man are the kind of people you build a coalition around.  . This is perhaps the laziest poo poo posting in this thread. Whichi s saying something.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
I love how the neolibs itt can't even keep their own talking points straight. Is single payer a pie-in-the-sky dream for stupid babies who don't understand why the grown-ups in the party are right to write it off, or did the party offer single-payer last election and Trump supporters rejected it because it was named after a black guy.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
"Single Payer will never ever happen, deal with it asswipes" *Loses every single level of government* "See single payer just can't win elections"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, and the comparison doesn't make sense without considering the implementation time in the first place either, since the discussion is specifically over reaching a minimum wage of $15 in 10 years, not right now. So even if flashman wasn't referring to the decade of implementation (which he of course was) a non-disingenuous reply would be one that does take into account the implementation time. And then there's also the fact (mentioned in the part you quoted) where he says $15 is "not much higher", so basically he was completely correct from the beginning. that's a lot of words to say "$15 is not much higher than $13" and after all what's the difference between $12 and $15 hillary 2016 (i'm for a $15 wage on a faster time-frame, fwiw) flashman posted:Exactly.. not much higher than it has been in the past. It's not some sort of Earth shattering raise that has never been seen before, it's like 15 percent higher than it has been. I wasn't disagreeing; the minimum wage was also too low in 1968
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
The point was it's disingenuous of JC to act as if 15 dollar minimum wage is this unheard of high that is going to have all these unknowable consequences when it's actually just a marginal increase over what has been in place in the past.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that's a lot of words to say "$15 is not much higher than $13" and after all what's the difference between $12 and $15 hillary 2016 That's not what this means. That $3 can be a small increment over minimum wages we've had in the past without a problem, yet make a large difference to the working poor person earning it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
flashman posted:The point was it's disingenuous of JC to act as if 15 dollar minimum wage is this unheard of high that is going to have all these unknowable consequences when it's actually just a marginal increase over what has been in place in the past. -ish; i mean i'd imagine setting it to $15 tomorrow would probably cause some shocks but like it probably should be $15 in 2016 dollars, and it's gonna be more like $13.25 in 2016 dollars Bernie's "$15 by 2024" plan happens which is to say it should be more like $17 in 2024, then index to inflation
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's not what this means. That $3 can be a small increment over minimum wages we've had in the past without a problem, yet make a large difference to the working poor person earning it. If you use the same inflation calculator posted earlier at the inflation rate of the last ten years on the 11.47 value the projected amount is over 14 dollars. A 15 dollar min wage is a return to the past, not a brave new frontier. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:-ish; i mean i'd imagine setting it to $15 tomorrow would probably cause some shocks Yes I agree with you there. Any min wage discussion taking place over a ten year implementation scheme will already be falling behind by the time it's achieved. Most likely the plank will be some bullshit 12 dollars over 8 years which leaves no one with any substantial increase in purchasing power. flashman fucked around with this message at 07:36 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Single Payer will never ever happen, deal with it asswipes" Lmao even idiots on The_D know it: 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Going to the hard left seems to be working swell for Labour. So what anyone who thinks the Fed min should be 13 or less is a sociopath? That how it works? How many of you are refreshing r/justiceforseth right now?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
How the gently caress does everyone voting for republicans come off as a message for full communism now?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Despera posted:How the gently caress does everyone voting for republicans come off as a message for full communism now? bernie's america's most popular politician also $15/hr isn't full communism now
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
I'm refreshing r/justiceforfogle.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
why do people put the r/ that doesn't make sense, it's a subreddit right? could you just say the subreddit with out the r/?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:why do people put the r/ that doesn't make sense, it's a subreddit right? could you just say the subreddit with out the r/? but then what if you didn't know that specific thing is a subreddit? the little r/ helpfully indicates that what is being discussed is both a subreddit and extremely terrible
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Despera posted:How the gently caress does everyone voting for republicans come off as a message for full communism now? Look at the actual votes, not the results. 3 million more votes for Hillary. Gerrymandering and voter suppression utterly raping democracy itself and causing the House to be red in spite of more D voters than R. Seems like there's room for interpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Despera posted:How the gently caress does everyone voting for republicans come off as a message for full communism now? Lol Canada is a communist state now? Liberals are just straight-up using Fox News talking points.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders' proposals are mostly to the right of Ike Eisenhower, and the so-called Democrat is redbaiting like McCarthy's back in style.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Despera posted:Going to the hard left seems to be working swell for Labour. Lol you'd think spending the entire election being a smug Hillary shill and then watching it all go down in flames would trigger some sort of introspection, but nope! Despera is back to tell everyone why neoliberalism is still the true path
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Centrists have been using "full communism now" as a sarcastic insult to economic leftists for so long that they've forgotten it was supposed to be sarcastic and really believe that anyone left of Hillary is some sort of super commie at this point. LOL at the idea that socialized medicare and $15 an hour minimum wage are some sort of Bolshevik revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
In fairness I am super commie, but I also harbor no illusion that we'd ever get there without an extremely violent revolution and that won't happen. So I'd settle for socialized medicine and a living minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Yes, but would you even want to live in the dystopia universal, not-for-profit healthcare and a livable minimum wage would bring? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Given that the change occurs gradually, this isn't a reason not to do it, though. If we see things start to become worse when we raise the wage of $13 or whatever, we can go from there. Not that that's going to happen, because it's not like $15 is dramatically higher than inflation-adjusted minimum wages we've had in the past. Yes it impacts people slightly above mimimum, no this doesn't really change the argument. There are still two groups - people who benefit and people who pay. quote:edit: Also, there is no reason to believe that the cost of minimum wage would mostly/disproportionately affect poor people, especially when you consider that an increase as much as 15/hr would basically help literally every single poor employed person. You are literally just blindly claiming that because it would help your argument. There is always reason to think costs get passed on which is why over decades prices of all sorts of things change wildly and economy wide profits hold within a roughly similar band. If the subject was oil prices I doubt you'd push back that increases will eventually be passed on. This study looks into prices and finds they're passed on, probably almost entirely: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=630515 quote:We offer new empirical evidence using quote:edit2: For the sake of accuracy, about 63% of people in poverty work, and literally all of those people would probably be effected by a wage increase to $15/hr (since $15/hr is well above what's considered poverty). And that's ignoring the fact that our current definition of poverty is WAY lower than it should be. If adjusted higher, that 37% rate of unemployment would likely decrease considerably. The 63% is the main thing that stands out in this entire post because higher than what I've seen. I see other numbers like ~61% of poor families have nobody working. It may depend on differing definitions of working. [https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/typical-minimum-wage-earners-arent-poor-but-theyre-not-quite-middle-class/  fivethirtyeight posted:How you interpret these numbers depends on your perspective. The data shows a large majority of minimum-wage workers are in low- to moderate-income families, and a significant minority are flat-out poor. These are the people who could use a raise. But it is true that minimum wage workers arn't that poor. That chart doesn't differ much from the economy as a whole (50% of MWW at 40K or below versus ~40% for the whole economy). That's why its so important to figure out who pays for it - it's not very progressive to begin with so there isn't much margin for error quote:Yes, and there is no way this would actually happen with all businesses. Your argument is relying on a completely crazy assumption. Certain businesses would likely pass on most of the increased cost to consumers (restaurants come to mind), but this is unlikely to be the case for large businesses that rely on maintaining competitive prices (and are in many cases forced to compete with foreign firms, online shopping, etc). Also, even for businesses that do pass on most/all of the cost, this isn't that important for businesses where labor isn't a major percent of total expenses. Yep there is a way that would happen with all businesses since passing on costs is what business do (and the opposite of what you say - low cost low margin businesses would be first). The "labor percentage of cost" comment shows you don't understand the basic ingredients of the discussion. We care whether businesses pass on their cost increases to their customers or not - not what the ultimate cost increase percentage actually is (and all costs reduce to labor by the way). A few closing comments: it remains obvious that minimum wage increases help workers who get it. By definition you can eliminate the working poor this way. But that doesn't mean its clear that this is a good approach to helping poor people overall or at generally redistributing wealth downwards which as far as I'm concerned is the most important goal.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:We care whether businesses pass on their cost increases to their customers or not - not what the ultimate cost increase percentage actually is (and all costs reduce to labor by the way). No, moron, if the cost increase is very very very small then we actually don't care about the increase. If Walmart raises prices 0.2% but millions more people are making more money, that is a net gain for society.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:32
|
|
