Left or Right, which way do you lean ?

tbergs

unsung said:

New quote system is terrible.  It is way too jumpy to use on mobile.

It definitely takes some getting used to and patience. It's not that great off mobile either.

mace1229

unsung said:

New quote system is terrible.  It is way too jumpy to use on mobile.

The one thing I think 99.9% of us will agree on here.
I get the feeling if I stare long enough enough at the multiple quote ones, a 3D image will pop out at me. 
Maybe that's what it is, maybe the image is a list of tour dates!

dmaradona10

Do we live in a box or on a spectrum?  I think we live on a spectrum. I dislike political titles.  There's things I agree with on the Left and things I agree with on the Right. I guess if anything I'm an Independent. 

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment. 

Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right.  Right on economics mostly.  Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right.  Far left on 2nd amendment.

Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending. 

to me  it's lower taxes and less government.  waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.

hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.

the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty.  
but yeah i'm right in the middle.  

Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?

Yes

Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?

InHiding80

dmaradona10 said:

Do we live in a box or on a spectrum?  I think we live on a spectrum. I dislike political titles.  There's things I agree with on the Left and things I agree with on the Right. I guess if anything I'm an Independent. 

Chris Rock said it best.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCgkf25Tus

CM189191

dmaradona10 said:

Do we live in a box or on a spectrum?  I think we live on a spectrum. I dislike political titles.  There's things I agree with on the Left and things I agree with on the Right. I guess if anything I'm an Independent. 

Time Cube

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment. 

Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right.  Right on economics mostly.  Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right.  Far left on 2nd amendment.

Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending. 

to me  it's lower taxes and less government.  waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.

hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.

the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty.  
but yeah i'm right in the middle.  

Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?

Yes

Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?

I can tell you, I work for a crown corporation in canada. I'm not sure if that's a term used in the US, but in Canada, it's technically not government, but all of our profits go to the government. and we follow the same guidelines as government. it's called not-for-profit, but it's actually all profit, as all profit goes to the government and they choose how to waste spend it how they please. 

in my organization alone, there is a LOT of fat that could be trimmed. there are entire departments that are there just because they are "corporate standard" after a corporate review by a third party auditing company that made recommendations (which also cost us a monumental amount of money to undertake), but the thing is, they are useless in our industry, and serve very little if any purpose at all. and they are some of the highest paid people in our company. it is maddening. 

hundreds of thousands per year would be saved if only ONE of these departments was removed. two guys from that department have quit: their exit interviews, why did they leave? "not enough to do". Jesus. 

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

There were/are politicians who did seek to raise the minimum to $15 immediately, with a plan to increase to $20 over the next couple of years. It has been debated for a few years now.

What research do you need that if someone currently goes to school for 4 years just to make $22/hr, they will no longer be able to fill those jobs if minimum wage is $20, unless they also increase that pay?
What research do you need if a family run business pays 6 employees $10/hr and profits about 80k/year, they will be better off getting a minimum wage job themself than to pay each employee $20/hr. And the the 6 employees are out of a job.
Yes, its a lot of speculation. But it makes common sense to most. National average for EMT is right around $20hr (some places even less). How many will strive to be an EMT if they can just work at the local McD's, or anywhere and make that same amount without a high school diploma?
So either an EMT should make minimum wage, along with everyone else with specific training and skills, or those jobs will increase too. And that is just inflation, and helps no one.
EMT is just one example of hundreds of jobs that a huge increase of minimum wage would have a drastic impact on. Either they become a minimum wage job too with all their training and skills, or you increase that salary.
I think it was the CEO of Burger King who said if it goes to $15, he'll be firing half the employees and installing automated ordering systems because the cost will be too high. Either way it will hurt more than it benefits.

Yes, which puts more people in higher rates of consumption, which is what drives an economy.  
It's beyond common sense, and yet conservatives can't wrap their minds around the fact that more people spending more money is better for the economy than less people having more money.

So if you double everyone's pay, that solves poverty?
Not how it works, the bottom will still be on the bottom if everyone gets paid more. Prices will rise accordingly to adjust for the inflation.
So okay, now you make $20 an hour. But bread is now $5 instead of $2.50 because the entire country just got a pay raise.. Youre still in the same boat.
You cant just give everyone more money and expect inflation not to occur. Thats why we "can't wrap our heads around it."

This is the part I don't get either. I used to try to enter into the minimum wage discussions, but tend not to venture in very often because they don't end up making any sense. If you currently have a couple of pay grades in your business, say $10 for new employees and $15 for employees who are experienced, senior employees, and suddenly minimum wage is raised from $10 to $15, do you pay both $15? Or do you now bump the senior employees to $20? If you leave the seniors at $15, good luck retaining employees. You'll now have a business filled with unskilled labor offering substandard quality products and services. If you bump the senior employees to $20, you've now radically increased labor costs. If you run a tight margin business, that leaves you with a couple of options - fewer employees (so that your labor cost remains flat - doesn't help minimum wage earners), fewer hours for employees (so that your labor cost remains flat - doesn't help minimum wage earners) or increased prices for your goods or services (to compensate for increased labor costs). That pay increase doesn't just come out of some unicorn's fart. So if you raise prices of your burgers from $7 to $10, will you still sell the same number of burgers because people now have customers with additional income, or will those same people who struggled at $10 an hour, now struggle at $15 because costs are rising for all of the things they need to purchase. Due to the rise in cost for that burger and everything else, discretionary spending won't necessarily increase. Inflation has taken care of that. So we're left with status quo, but people's checks "appear" to be larger, and Uncle Sam can now grab more of it. Yippee! What's been accomplished? (aside from people feeling good that they passed a bill increasing wages for everyone).

But ultimately I think the minimum wage discussion is a distraction. It has nothing to do with a living wage even though people interchange minimum wage with living wage. The reality, based on the link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics posted by Halifax clearly shows that the low income earners are young, unmarried, part-time, less educated and living in the South. Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage for the breadwinner of the family. It was intended for a low-skilled, young person trying to earn weed, beer and gas money and to give them a start at learning to hold a job. PJSoul made a good point about the inadequacy of a federal minimum wage, since a vast disparity exists between economies of locales around the country. Seattle's $15/hr minimum wage has been brought up, but again, that is in no way a living wage for this area. A family of 4 making $72,000 in Seattle is now considered low income (median income is $96.000). That's the problem. The other problem is that while median income in Seattle is $96,000, the median house price in Seattle is $722,000, doubled from just 5 years ago . So even if you aren't "low income" and are making the median income, you cannot afford to buy a house here. It is even worse in San Francisco. 

So if people want to champion a minimum wage to make themselves feel better, go for it. The reality is that your cause won't do shit to address the inability of working families being able to make a living wage or to ever afford a home in many areas.

Nobody is claiming that a minimum wage should afford you to buy a house. Man you guys shift the goal posts. A lot.

Not sure who "you guys" are who you referred to, and not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the minimum wage. More weed money for non-skilled stoners?

Edit: and as I specifically said, I don't really give much of a shit about the minimum wage. It is a distraction from the real issue of families trying to make a living wage (nothing to do with minimum wage) trying to afford to live day-to-day. It isn't just about buying a house. If house prices are high, it follows that rent prices are high as well. Around here millennials are moving out of the city in droves in search of affordable housing and a future. They aren't minimum wage earners. You're the one stuck on minimum wage. I was trying to make the point that there is a larger problem. This isn't a minimum wage thread, so I didn't think it was against the rules to make a tangential point. But if you'd prefer that this be a minimum wage thread, have at it.

Re the bolded comments:
Your first statement is what makes no sense to me. Say they did keep the $15 wages the same once minimum wages went up to that? You think everyone who didn't get a raise would quit en masse? Where do you think they'll go? People don't just quit jobs without other jobs to go to, and there is no reason why all of those people would suddenly easily be able to find higher paying jobs elsewhere. So I think your assumptions here are extremely flawed, unless you think that people would prefer to not be employed at all over being paid the same as those who used to be paid less. This strikes me as a very odd supposition.

Your second statement... well, it tells me that you may not have any interest in considering the lives of low-wage earners. What in the holy fuck did you mean by that comment??? Obviously, people want full time minimum wage earners to be able to afford basic expenses so they can live. Expenses like rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothes. And maybe even a little bit left over so they can go see a movie every once in a while, or, yeah, maybe buy a couple grams of weed once in a while. That is far from too much to ask for people who work full time. And for the part time minimum wage workers... well their hour is worth just as much as a full time worker's hour, obviously, so just because someone doesn't have to support themselves on minimum wage it doesn't mean they should be working for shit wages. Lower wage earners are SO fucking undervalued, it is disgusting.

Go Beavers

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment. 

Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right.  Right on economics mostly.  Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right.  Far left on 2nd amendment.

Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending. 

to me  it's lower taxes and less government.  waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.

hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.

the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty.  
but yeah i'm right in the middle.  

Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?

Yes

Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?

I can tell you, I work for a crown corporation in canada. I'm not sure if that's a term used in the US, but in Canada, it's technically not government, but all of our profits go to the government. and we follow the same guidelines as government. it's called not-for-profit, but it's actually all profit, as all profit goes to the government and they choose how to waste spend it how they please. 

in my organization alone, there is a LOT of fat that could be trimmed. there are entire departments that are there just because they are "corporate standard" after a corporate review by a third party auditing company that made recommendations (which also cost us a monumental amount of money to undertake), but the thing is, they are useless in our industry, and serve very little if any purpose at all. and they are some of the highest paid people in our company. it is maddening. 

hundreds of thousands per year would be saved if only ONE of these departments was removed. two guys from that department have quit: their exit interviews, why did they leave? "not enough to do". Jesus. 

I'm not sure what the US equivalent would be.  

mace1229

Re the bolded comments:
Your first statement is what makes no sense to me. Say they did keep the $15 wages the same once minimum wages went up to that? You think everyone who didn't get a raise would quit en masse? Where do you think they'll go? People don't just quit jobs without other jobs to go to, and there is no reason why all of those people would suddenly easily be able to find higher paying jobs elsewhere. So I think your assumptions here are extremely flawed, unless you think that people would prefer to not be employed at all over being paid the same as those who used to be paid less. This strikes me as a very odd supposition.

Your second statement... well, it tells me that you may not have any interest in considering the lives of low-wage earners. What in the holy fuck did you mean by that comment??? Obviously, people want full time minimum wage earners to be able to afford basic expenses so they can live. Expenses like rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothes. And maybe even a little bit left over so they can go see a movie every once in a while, or, yeah, maybe buy a couple grams of weed once in a while. That is far from too much to ask for people who work full time. And for the part time minimum wage workers... well their hour is worth just as much as a full time worker's hour, obviously, so just because someone doesn't have to support themselves on minimum wage it doesn't mean they should be working for shit wages. Lower wage earners are SO fucking undervalued, it is disgusting.

I don't think people would quit in masses. I think it would be harder to fill those jobs currently in the $15-20 range in the future, jobs that require some education and training, and you would see the impact in a year or 2. 
A kid just out of high school has the option to chose job A that requires no training, can start right away and make $15. Or, he can chose job B that requires him to go to school for 2 years, get a special license like a plumber's license, pay to be certified and all that, and still only make $15. Not that employers will increase those wages over night, or that people will quit on day 1, but I do think it would drive those wages up faster than it would otherwise, or else people will not be drawn to those jobs any longer. There are a lot of jobs, especially in the mid-west or other parts of the country with lower average income, that require a lot and pay not much more than $15. I mentioned EMT before, because the national average is about $20, which means in some parts of the country it is $15 or even less. Some places are already short finding EMTs, how much harder will it be if they can make essentially the same amount working a coffee shop with zero stress and regular hours? They would take the shorter, faster road with the same rewards. I don't see how that can be a competitive job without increasing the wage, but it sounds like that is what you are arguing against what would happen.
As far as the second comment, that wasn't me talking about buying weed so I can't respond to that.

PJ_Soul

Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.

No, stagnant isn't good either.  But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.

No, stagnant isn't good either.  But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.

But if wages are not currently allowing people to support themselves at even the most basic level, what in the fuck is the alternative. It isn't their fault that the government has fucked the dog for too long and refused to make sure that wages kept pace with inflation. Because that is exactly what the government has done, it is the government that has to support businesses as wages are brought up to a living wage. I can't believe anyone is willing to make excuses around this, would support continuing to ensure that so many people can't even feed themselves properly. There are plenty of options that could allow living wages ASAP. It's just that politicians are refusing to do so because they are afraid to alienate the rich.

brianlux

I put my right foot in. I put my left foot out.  I do the hokey pokey.  Unless I'm listening to Lou Reed.  Then I do the Hookey Wookie.  That what it's all about.

my2hands

Ahhhhhh.... the great myth that the right wing of America are the adult fiscal conservatives pinching the pennies 

LOL

I will give them this, they are REALLY good at messaging 

mcgruff10

Did godfather get a permanent ban?!

Bentleyspop

mcgruff10 said:

Did godfather get a permanent ban?!

He never  seems to be banned permanently.
Maybe this time?
He wasn't here long this time around.
No clue what he did to deserve this ban.

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.

No, stagnant isn't good either.  But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.

But if wages are not currently allowing people to support themselves at even the most basic level, what in the fuck is the alternative. It isn't their fault that the government has fucked the dog for too long and refused to make sure that wages kept pace with inflation. Because that is exactly what the government has done, it is the government that has to support businesses as wages are brought up to a living wage. I can't believe anyone is willing to make excuses around this, would support continuing to ensure that so many people can't even feed themselves properly. There are plenty of options that could allow living wages ASAP. It's just that politicians are refusing to do so because they are afraid to alienate the rich.

I looked up the number last week when I was reading a few article about it. Forgot the exact amount, but was definitely the majority of minimum wage workers are not the primary caregiver for the household. Most are high school or college age, working part time to get some extra spending cash.
The amount of heads of households making minimum wage was very small, I think in the single digits if I remember. But that number is misleading, because that was just those making minimum wage, not including those making a buck or two above it
So my question is then why does everyone need a livable wage?
Is there a way to make sure those over 25 supporting a family can get a livable wage, while the 16 year old in high school who works 8 hours a week just to get some spending cash gets the wage they deserve? Because honestly, very few HS kids need or deserve $15/hr, and are perfectly happy making half that.
Would it be fair to have a minimum wage for a HS diploma and another without one? And another with an age limit? But then that would just make it nearly impossible for others to find work if an employer was forced to pay more. Just like the small business exemption. Many small businesses cant afford a higher wage and make it, but if they are exempt who would work there?

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment. 

Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right.  Right on economics mostly.  Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right.  Far left on 2nd amendment.

Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending. 

to me  it's lower taxes and less government.  waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.

hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.

the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty.  
but yeah i'm right in the middle.  

Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?

Yes

Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?

I doubt we have the time to cover this.  

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.

No, stagnant isn't good either.  But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.

But if wages are not currently allowing people to support themselves at even the most basic level, what in the fuck is the alternative. It isn't their fault that the government has fucked the dog for too long and refused to make sure that wages kept pace with inflation. Because that is exactly what the government has done, it is the government that has to support businesses as wages are brought up to a living wage. I can't believe anyone is willing to make excuses around this, would support continuing to ensure that so many people can't even feed themselves properly. There are plenty of options that could allow living wages ASAP. It's just that politicians are refusing to do so because they are afraid to alienate the rich.

I looked up the number last week when I was reading a few article about it. Forgot the exact amount, but was definitely the majority of