| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote: What do you specifically agree with Jonny on? The gist of the EITC being a better plan than raising minimum wage, and proven to help the poor. Raising minimum wage in parallel with the TPP will have severe unemployment consequences I would imagine. We'll be competing with some super low wage labor after all. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24403 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:25 screamingpalm wrote: The gist of the EITC being a better plan than raising minimum wage, and proven to help the poor. Raising minimum wage in parallel with the TPP will have severe unemployment consequences I would imagine. We'll be competing with some super low wage labor after all. So why not get rid of the minimum wage altogether? | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:31 GreenHorizons wrote: So why not get rid of the minimum wage altogether? Well, sort of... I wouldn't go quite that far. I would think that setting a minimum wage helps regulate or manage the budget for safety net programs (how much revenue needs to be raised), but it should also be set to be competitive if we want to keep jobs around. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24403 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:47 screamingpalm wrote: Well, sort of... I wouldn't go quite that far. I would think that setting a minimum wage helps regulate or manage the budget for safety net programs (how much revenue needs to be raised), but it should also be set to be competitive if we want to keep jobs around. How so? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12042 Posts
Note that the situation is completely different for safety nets for unemployed people. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:58 GreenHorizons wrote: How so? Setting a minimum wage of $1.00 obviously means you need to raise much more revenue for welfare programs. A balancing act of sorts. Someone smarter than I will have to come up with something more tangible on expense comparisons of higher wages + unemployment/welfare + inflation versus lower wages and expanded supplemental aid etc. XD I would err on the side of being competitive and keeping jobs though. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
On July 08 2015 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote: Does it bother conservatives that the RNC is paying for stuff like this? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MilyriJ.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5689qiI.jpg) what is supposed to bother people about this | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12042 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On July 08 2015 23:12 Simberto wrote: Its alphabetical. Sounds like a reasonable way to order them value-neutrally. I am an idiot. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10974 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On July 08 2015 23:24 Velr wrote: Lol, that thing is actually more complicated than anything i have ever seen in Switzerland (and we vote directly on just about everything)... Way to go. So do we. Most of us vote on machines that are extremely simple. As in press the button next to the name you choose and press yes or no for amendments etc. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22667 Posts
Please tell me I am reading this wrong. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22667 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24403 Posts
On July 09 2015 00:45 Gorsameth wrote: nvm me then >< It's okay, the whole point is to trick people, into thinking it's a primary voting ballot. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
does faux outrage ever get tiring to you? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24403 Posts
On July 09 2015 01:08 QuanticHawk wrote: ah yes, I almost forgot that our voting machines have options have buttons for strongly support, moderately support, etc etc... does faux outrage ever get tiring to you? I'm not outraged, I just would be pissed if the DNC was using deceptive marketing crap like that, which is clearly designed to trick people (even if just initially) and obviously does trick some people despite it's absurdity. That, and it just looks pathetic and desperate with some of the names on there. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On July 09 2015 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not outraged, I just would be pissed if the DNC was using deceptive marketing crap like that, which is clearly designed to trick people (even if just initially) and obviously does trick some people despite it's absurdity. That, and it just looks pathetic and desperate with some of the names on there. It's basically a survey to see how people feel about each candidate, and how likely they would be willing to support that candidate in the general election. It's important because chances are, most people's favorite candidate will not be the nominee, yet the RNC has to make sure they can identify a candidate that the party would unify behind, and push those candidates forward if need be. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
