|
Baron Porkface posted:This thread gives me a newfound respect for Republicans who at least understand the basic causality between winning elections and implementing policy. in that when they win elections, they attempt to implement policy as opposed to democrats, whose immediate reaction on acquiring power is to try to come up with excuses for why implementing policy would be too haaaaard
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:This thread gives me a newfound respect for Republicans who at least understand the basic causality between winning elections and implementing policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:hey oocc what do you do for a living? gimme a ballpark of how much you make, since you want to scoff at how other people are talking to people in poverty Technology coordinator for a bunch of small rural school districts. The amount I make per year is weird because the sum total of the yearly income is really low, but I also don't always work 12 months a year, and I also get paid a bunch of it in lump sums so I am able to budget money in a way no one else really could and also I live in a place where the cost of living is so low that it basically feels like it can't even deal with me correctly. So a lot of years the actual yearly income will be something like 27,000 a year but it's pretty much impossible to talk about how much money that is in the context of anyone but my own weird circumstances. Like there is at least one person reading this that pays more in rent and utilities per month than I pay per year because I live in the middle of no where in a half abandoned town. And getting paid in less months means you can do things like feasibly buying a reliable used car up front instead of getting a loan and snowballing the savings in a way most people absolutely can't even if they make way more money overall. You can take that kinda however you want. You can take me as a relatively poor person because I make not much per year, or a certain type of rich person because I have few meaningful financial concerns or as some sort of alien from mars that is totally disconnected from normal human finance and all three of those are each probably true to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Oh word so maybe don't talk poo poo about how I don't care about people in poverty then given that I have a slight bit more experience with slaving away for minimum wage in 2018
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:12 dollars would literally be the highest national minimum wage of any country on earth except australia or luxembourg. There are numbers higher than 12, and all of them would be even better, but I literally can not comprehend of voting republican or not voting based on using THIS as some hard line you won't budge on. This is so loving dishonest. It completely ignores the fact that most of these other countries* have ways to eliminate or lower the huge costs of living that Americans face (healthcare, housing, education, etc). Or they have some other circumstances that result in wages being higher than that (like a strong union presence, etc). I want you to sit down and think long and hard about why you're taking the position of defended a $12/hr minimum wage against people who want something higher. Because this is seriously disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. *I should add that I'm only considering other wealthy, developed nations, because you're getting into "but poor people have refrigerators" territory if you start comparing the US with poor nations. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, so why didn't you vote for the democrats in your own state that were pushing for that? Like you are claiming you were so angry that the national democrat policy was 12 that that made you not support your local democrats pushing 15? You would give up yourself and everyone in your state getting 15 because someone else might only get 12 (and instead of 12 you favored them getting minimum wage lowered?) You do realize that the only reason Democrats started supporting these wages in the first place is due to heavy pressure from people unhappy with their previous tepid efforts, right? If everyone Democrat was like you, we would have never gotten $15/hr anywhere. It's not like the Democrats suddenly came up with this on their own and were the ones who made it popular. While I disagree with BENGHAZI 2 about not voting helping to accomplish these goals, it's also nonsense that voting helps much to accomplish them. Non-voting-related activism (and voting in primaries) is what accomplishes these things, and at the end of the day people strongly dissatisfied with the status quo are the ones who make change happen, not the ones who defend it. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
There's also the long ignored fact here that $12 wasn't something offered in a bubble against $15 activists. the party itself added $15 minwage as a platform plank, and the presidential candidate, who is worth an obscene amount of money and owns several several-million dollar houses, fuckin' tried to haggle that down to $12 immediately after the convention
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
It's kind of funny how little time it took for the liberal "we believe the same things, I'm just being practical" mask to slip, all it took was someone saying "Idaho workers have the right to live" and the liberal nopes right out. E: I think Reaganism and Clintonism broke a bunch of brains in the Democratic Party. A lot of Democrats don't seem to be interested in the best policy, only in appearing ""reasonable"". A worker might need $15/hr just to adequately provide for their family in America, but in order to preserve my self-image of being loftily above-it-all in a world of pure rationality I'm going to irrationally insist that workers arbitrarily get less than they need to live because that's somewhere in the middle and therefore appears """reasonable""" (even though Republicans will never compliment me on my reasonableness and in fact will hate me and fight $12 just as hard, so I'm just kneecapping my support for no gain by telling potential voters that I won't fight for their right to live either). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's kind of funny how little time it took for the liberal "we believe the same things, I'm just being practical" mask to slip, all it took was someone saying "Idaho workers have the right to live" and the liberal nopes right out. I just don't buy your weird theory that progress is bad because it prevents progress. A 15 dollar minimum wage is better than a 12 dollar one but a 12 dollar one is better than a 7 dollar one and a 7 dollar one is better than a zero dollar one. Now you are going to cry "oh, those people in idaho should just WAIT for 15 dollars!??!?" like you are some saint by letting the side promising zero dollars win (because their side never has any hand wringing that they hate their agenda moving forward unless it's moving forward exactly the right amount) and they just need to hang on through trump for 4+ more years and you promise next time president perfect will get elected and rise up every issue simultaneously from broken to fixed in one step.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I just don't buy your weird theory that progress is bad because it prevents progress. A 15 dollar minimum wage is better than a 12 dollar one but a 12 dollar one is better than a 7 dollar one and a 7 dollar one is better than a zero dollar one. This is what you're saying now that you realized you hosed up, it's not what you told Dickeye at first: Owlofcreamcheese posted:So you want the real purchasing power of minimum wage to be less for people in new york and california for some reason because it would make a number the same? Instead of recognizing that new york has a higher cost of living and you need a higher minimum wage to buy the same amount of things? You specifically made the argument that because New York City has a higher cost of living than Idaho, than rather than pushing for a living wage in New York City like $20/hr, Idahoans should get a sub-living wage of $12/hr to make it fair
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Because the people opposing a $15 minimum wage aren't going to suddenly come around on $12. They don't want to pay a cent more. You might as well go for broke because negotiation won't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
I don't get how you look at the history of labour relations and think "hmm yes what we need to do is expend all our energy on achieving the most meager possible improvements because those are never used as a cudgel against better ones"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
^^^ To be frank, I think we all know that none of this is actually motivated by any sort of coherent ideology on OOCC's part (or anyone else who makes these kinds of arguments). It's purely done out of a bizarre sort of distaste/irritation some liberals have towards the left. All of these arguments basically stem from the liberal in question feeling annoyed/irritated with the left and then conjuring up some sort of argument to justify their emotions.Owlofcreamcheese posted:I just don't buy your weird theory that progress is bad because it prevents progress. A 15 dollar minimum wage is better than a 12 dollar one but a 12 dollar one is better than a 7 dollar one and a 7 dollar one is better than a zero dollar one. Now you are going to cry "oh, those people in idaho should just WAIT for 15 dollars!??!?" like you are some saint by letting the side promising zero dollars win (because their side never has any hand wringing that they hate their agenda moving forward unless it's moving forward exactly the right amount) and they just need to hang on through trump for 4+ more years and you promise next time president perfect will get elected and rise up every issue simultaneously from broken to fixed in one step. You're ignoring the fact that there's a real cost to waiting longer for these things. Every year that passes is another year that people continue to go without reasonable wages (or having a variety of other needs fulfilled, like dealing with police brutality, etc). What in the world is gained by taking a position contrary to the people who want more? If you disagree with them and think $15 is too high, you should be making that argument instead, but if you agree that it would be good I can't see the purpose in defending an inferior option. I think that, whether you realize it or not, this comes down to what VitalSigns said (about liberals wanting to appear and feel "reasonable"). Because even from a pragmatic standpoint it doesn't make any sense to push back against people who desire more. Also, I would strongly encourage you to consider that your bizarre "but it's better than the Republicans making things worse!" argument could literally be used forever as an excuse for maintain the status quo. And that, ironically, your attitude actually helps Republicans in the end (through discouraging any Democrats that actually care about real positive change from voting). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Centrists telling leftists they need to support the status quo against the right, while the right in all parties push it further in their direction is politics.txt for the past several decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You specifically made the argument that because New York City has a higher cost of living than Idaho, than rather than pushing for a living wage in New York City like $20/hr, Idahoans should get a sub-living wage of $12/hr to make it fair Living wage in Idaho is 10.64 according to MIT: http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/16 Living wage in new york is 15.21 according to MIT: http://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/35620 so a 15 dollar minimum wage in new york is NOT enough to live a livable wage, but a 12 dollar minimum wage in idaho is a livable wage puls a dollar 30 an hour for luxuries. Costs of living vary regionally . In no state is 15 or 12 remotely enough to live as a single parent either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
 Quoting the living wage for a single adult as if people don't have families. 2 Adults 2 Children is $15.70 in Idaho you disingenuous gently caress. If you don't think 2 adults working full-time should be able to support their kids you might as well just register Republican.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
And if you don't vote hillary all the poor people you care about get to go in a time machine to skip ahead past trump? You don't just get to detach yourself from the real world and say "It's okay that I fought progress, everyone should be fine holding on 4 or 8 or more years till my guy wins"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
I think the big thing is that so far in recent memory, democrats say that they support a higher minimum wage, but when they're in control, especially in local politics they often oppose it, or put up road blocks or say poo poo like "well we'll phase it in over the next hundred years" or whatever. Then by the time you get $15 an hour it isn't really as helpful as it would have been when you first started fighting for it, but democrats and their supporters go "But look, they really ARE progressive" after it took thirty years to raise the minimum wage enough to be able to afford food and rent ten years ago and we have to start all over again. And that is just the minimum wage. Look at the loving healthcare bill we ended up with. "You must pay insurance companies for health insurance." thanks democrats. Not to poo poo on the various good parts of the healthcare bill, but anyone arguing that democrats actually give a poo poo about people over corporations is a liar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
So like, why do you support 15 then? if it's not livable? Why is yout centrism support of a less than livable wage totally good now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So like, why do you support 15 then? if it's not livable? Why is yout centrism support of a less than livable wage totally good now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So like, why do you support 15 then? if it's not livable? Why is yout centrism support of a less than livable wage totally good now? A living wage for a 2 parent 2 child household is $14.61 in West Virginia. A federal minimum of $15/hr would guarantee that even the poorest places in the country in the evilest states will still be able to support a family. If Idaho's living wage is $15.70 then the state government can and ought to set a higher wage and you should be pushing for that if you live there rather than disingenuously using it to argue down everyone else's wages to subsurvival levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:As it turns out, it is possible to think some compromises are acceptable, and other, worse compromises are unacceptable. Oh look at this centrist, thinking that "people in new york shouldn't have a livable wage" is a good compromise. You make me sick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A living wage for a 2 parent 2 child household is $14.61 in West Virginia. A federal minimum of $15/hr would guarantee that even the poorest places in the country in the evilest states will still be able to support a family. If Idaho's living wage is $15.70 then the state government can and ought to set a higher wage and you should be pushing for that if you live there rather than disingenuously using it to argue down everyone else's wages to subsurvival levels. So your super hyper left answer is states rights and that the government should set a minimum wage lower than the living wage because local state governments MIGHT raise it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Oh look at this centrist, thinking that "people in new york shouldn't have a livable wage" is a good compromise. You make me sick. VitalSigns posted:A living wage for a 2 parent 2 child household is $14.61 in West Virginia. A federal minimum of $15/hr would guarantee that even the poorest places in the country in the evilest states will still be able to support a family. If Idaho's living wage is $15.70 then the state government can and ought to set a higher wage and you should be pushing for that if you live there rather than disingenuously using it to argue down everyone else's wages to subsurvival levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So your super hyper left answer is states rights and that the government should set a minimum wage lower than the living wage because local state governments MIGHT raise it? So to recap your argument against the $15/hr wage is (a) different states have different standard of living so it should be up to Idaho and New York what their minimum wage is and the federal wage should be lower than every state's living wage just to make sure also (b) states can't be trusted if wages are up to them so the minimum needs to be higher than every state's living wage just to make sure Huh weird your position is completely incoherent it's almost as if  you just oppose paying people enough to live and you will shamelessly lie and contradict yourself at every turn in order to scramble for a reason to keep families in poverty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So to recap your argument against the $15/hr wage is Yeah, it's almost like solving all problems through minimum wage is not actually possible and every number is a compromise that needs other programs to fully address.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, it's almost like solving all problems through minimum wage is not actually possible and every number is a compromise that needs other programs to fully address. Yeah I agree with this, and $15 is the minimum acceptable compromise, there's no argument for intentionally setting it lower than that other than "gently caress poor families".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Housing is the single biggest driver of household costs today. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, rent is supposed to be a third of a person's income. A significant number of people pay over half of their income towards housing. This is a problem. Trying to throw out a minimum wage number means you're constantly going to be chasing inflating housing costs, and you're going to end up offering a wholly inadequate amount of money for a livable wage. So let's try a different idea. Let's index minimum wage to average rent. If a person works 160 hours a month (40 hours a week, 4 weeks per month), then they should be able to meet that HUD requirement of their rent being a third of their income. That way, everybody wins. Except rent-seekers and businesses that exploit their workers, but they can go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I agree with this, and $15 is the minimum acceptable compromise, there's no argument for intentionally setting it lower than that other than "gently caress poor families". Why specifically 15? What makes that compromise the one true leftist position that can't just be demolished by someone saying 16 is the one true position and everyone that would vote for a democrat that supported 15 is a nazi baby killer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why specifically 15? What makes that compromise the one true leftist position that can't just be demolished by someone saying 16 is the one true position and everyone that would vote for a democrat that supported 15 is a nazi baby killer? Why not 14. Why not 11. Why not 7.26. Why not a dollar, since Republicans want to eliminate the minimum wage, we need to vote for a dollar, you don't want Republicans to win do you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why specifically 15? What makes that compromise the one true leftist position that can't just be demolished by someone saying 16 is the one true position and everyone that would vote for a democrat that supported 15 is a nazi baby killer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Here's the thing OoCC, the people demanding $15 are not ideologically opposed to $16. If Hillary came back and said "hey would about 16" they would not say "oh my stars that's too radical oh no we can't". They just consider $15 the minimum acceptable compromise because it's what the average family needs to live in the poorest places in America. The difference is, the people insisting on $12 are ideologically opposed to $15. They pull out a whole bunch of conservative arguments in order to fight against the living wage and make sure families are trapped in poverty and exploited by employers. It's not a magic number, it's a fundamental difference in ideology. People insisting on $12 are actively opposed to the goal of having a living wage, they are not trying to incrementally approach it, and you can see this in the arguments that they throw out, exhibit A: you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Here's the thing OoCC, the people demanding $15 are not ideologically opposed to $16. If Hillary came back and said "hey would about 16" they would not say "oh my stars that's too radical oh no we can't". They just consider $15 the minimum acceptable compromise because it's what the average family needs to live in the poorest places in America. This sure reads like "the only good centrism is my centrism" . Where you are willing to have a minimum wage lower than some people's living wage but it's okay because it's a bigger number than some other number, and you'd be happy with an even bigger bigger number but you don't want to rock too many boats by holding out for it. 12 gives some people a living wage and not other people, so does 13 and 14 and 15 and 16 and every number you can name up until the mid 30s where single parents of multiple children live. Any number you name is a compromise where you are helping some people and leaving other people in the cold. 8 is better than 7 and 9 is better than 8 and 10 is better than 9. Just list the numbers in order and you got the rankings, someone can always list a higher number than you can to claim they are more moral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This sure reads like "the only good centrism is my centrism" . Where you are willing to have a minimum wage lower than some people's living wage but it's okay because it's a bigger number than some other number, and you'd be happy with an even bigger bigger number but you don't want to rock too many boats by holding out for it. So go with a formula that tracks based on the single biggest driver of the cost of living.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This sure reads like "the only good centrism is my centrism" . Where you are willing to have a minimum wage lower than some people's living wage but it's okay because it's a bigger number than some other number, and you'd be happy with an even bigger bigger number but you don't want to rock too many boats by holding out for it. That's not what's happening though, people who want 12 or 8 or whatever are doing that because they oppose a living wage for most Americans. People who want 15 as a minimum acceptable compromise are not opposed to a $20 minimum wage. 15 is a good number for a nationwide campaign because it ensures that at a minimum the average family can survive and it's not vulnerable to "oh but West Virginia doesn't need that!" 12 doesn't do that. 8 doesn't do that. A dollar doesn't do that.15 doesn't magically fix everything, it's a compromise, if your response to a compromise is "well you're already giving up something so why not give up everything" you're not compromising. Amusingly, as I noted if it's any higher you would pull the "oh but every state doesn't need it" card that you already tried, so now you're doing the "well it's not high enough for New York why bother" card because you're a disingenuous fuckhead who can't mash a single honest argument into your keyboard. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
If you think about it M4A and tax cuts are basically the same thing since they help some people but not others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
This conversation reminds me of the really tiresome DNC chair debate, with the usual D&D liberals demanding complete surrender to them and calling it "compromise". "You can't insist on everything you want, Ellison is too left why can't you just give us everything we want" alongside "Ellison isn't even the leftmost guy in the race, why is your centrism more okay than mine, therefore you must give us everything we want". Magically there is no way to compromise with centrists, if you don't you're a radical so bend the knee, if you do you're a centrist too so bend the knee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's not what's happening though, people who want 12 or 8 or whatever are doing that because they oppose a living wage for most Americans. Boy, that sure is a rule that you pulled out of your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This conversation reminds me of the really tiresome DNC chair debate, with the usual D&D liberals demanding complete surrender to them and calling it "compromise". It's almost like there's a kind of centrist who doesn't actually care about what actual laws and policies are passed as long as it's done by the right people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Boy, that sure is a rule that you pulled out of your rear end. It's not a "rule", the minimum wage debate is a proxy for the ideological debate: do workers have a right to a living wage to provide for their families. That's why the question is so contentious. The people saying 15 are choosing it as a starting point for legislation because there's no rational argument against it besides gently caress poor families: it covers the average household and isn't vulnerable to arguments that it's not necessary in this or that state (again, the argument you would disingenuously start making the instant someone took the bait and said "okay now it's the Fight-For-16 campaign) The people saying 12 are ideologically opposed to a living wage, that's why they don't want one. It's just not popular to say this, so we have to go through this whole song and dance where they pretend to agree on the ideological question and then disingenuously frame it as disagreeing on details and try to dress up their sociopathy with flimsy arguments like "oh well if a single mom with 5 kids would still suffer on a $15 wage, let's make her suffer 20% more and also force a whole bunch of other families to suffer too". Those people will never incrementally get us to an inflation-adjusted $15/hr wage because they don't want one VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Magically there is no way to compromise with centrists, if you don't you're a radical so bend the knee, if you do you're a centrist too so bend the knee. Yeah, because everyone is a centrist on someone's political scale and we are on forum where someone saying "well, I wouldn't even vote for someone unless they doubled the minimum wage" can argue with someone for 20 pages on "well I'd vote for someone that raised the minimum wage by more than half" and have that be a discussion on who is on the right of the forum standard. Like not even an argument of what the minimum wage should be, or what is ideal, an argument where both people want it to be much higher and the argument is on what the minimum that makes a candidate unelectable would be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:28
|
|