|
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. |
SARASOTA, Fla. — With mounting losses and his chances that voters deliver him the Republican nomination near-nonexistent, Marco Rubio is flirting with the same political “death spiral” that swallowed Jeb Bush only three weeks ago.
He’s fending off rumors of quitting, defending undersized crowds and promoting polls that show him losing (even in his home state), while also whining about Donald Trump’s media coverage.
All just like Jeb.
And that was before Tuesday’s devastating results, where Rubio sunk to single digits in Mississippi and Michigan, finishing last and losing so badly that he won no delegates in those two states. He was a distant third in Idaho at risk of getting no delegates there. After he came in third in Hawaii with 12 percent, he was a mere 2 for 24 in the campaign, and his wins came in the Republican hinterlands of Minnesota and Puerto Rico.
Hours before the polls closed, Rubio had tried to rally his supporters at Dolphin Aviation in Sarasota on Tuesday afternoon. But the airplane hangar was only half-full, with the campaign generously estimating as many as 1,000 had come. Four years earlier, that same venue had hosted 3,000 for Newt Gingrich, and Florida wasn’t his home state. And three months earlier, Trump drew upwards of 10,000 in the same city, filling an arena as thousands more overflowed into the streets.
Source
|
On March 10 2016 04:02 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 10 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Minimum wage is a right wing labor union idea. It is bad for reducing inequality.
If you want to solve inequality, which is a serious problem that undermines the moral fiber of a society and hurts everyone including the rich, you need to find a real solution. Not minimum wage which is a token gesture at best, a condemnation to joblessness and a life of handouts for the least skilled workers at worst.
Minimum wage is how skilled workers kick down at the lowest skilled and least productive workers, so they have also some to kick down at while society as a whole is kicking down at them. 1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare. 2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. Was reading article where the author was making an argument that the introduction to minimum wage actually hurt minority workers. Jobs that were once too low paying for white Americans, were now paying enough that the job market got flooded by white Americans because the pay was now acceptable in comparison to the work done. Just thought the article was interesting.
I could see that premise being true yes. However the important question then becomes "was it right to pay minorities so little for the work they did?"
Imo a single person working a full-time job should be able to sustain themselves a modest living regardless of how little their work is worth, any less is just subsidizing the business they work for. And the minimum wage (if properly maintained) is a good way to ensure that.
|
On March 10 2016 04:10 oneofthem wrote:
how is it stupid? empirically trade has tremendously benefited those asian countries, dont even need timeframe
because circumstances arw different now. because we dont have counterfactuals. etc.
|
lets talk about a paradigm shift in what it means to be materially wealthy now. a tech sector that produces profit by monetizing attention is fundamentally different than providing resources that encourage physical thriving. there can be some debate about what "thriving" means in relation to opening up opportunities (ie intellectual) but the predatory nature of much tech and advertising weighs heavily against such utility. we are at a point whete its technically possible to allow thriving of all individuals but thats a different question from capital accumulation. this contradiction is at the heart of our "free trade" disagreement.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 04:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:10 oneofthem wrote:
how is it stupid? empirically trade has tremendously benefited those asian countries, dont even need timeframe because circumstances arw different now. because we dont have counterfactuals. etc.
how does this change anything these places are extremely export reliant.
|
On March 10 2016 02:53 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:What she says means nothing. She has a long long track record of saying exactly that which is political favorable to her. If she is elected, and if it becomes opportune, she will repeal Dott Frank in a heartbeat. If during the campaign, it becomes opportune to attack Wall Street as hard as Sanders is, she will do it in heartbeat. Just to give an example. Do you really believe Hillary has been anti-gay for almost all her life?
Do you have some anti-gay rhetoric of hers you can link to? I doubt it. From what I understand she and her husband have always been personally for gay rights, but followed what they perceived to be a strong public consensus against expanding those rights. While not heroic or particularly admirable, it is often the job of a politician to do just that and put the will of the people over their own private opinion. There is nothing contradictory there, and it hardly deserves to be called political opportunism.
|
On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare.
2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less.
That's why minimum wage is bad, those that are weakest get less and they can't meet their basic needs while having 0 productivity and achieving 0% of their already very low productivity.
Example is the coffee lady at some office. A coffee dispenser is cheaper than minimum wage. This lady shows up too late late every week, has no sense of drive or competition, does everything she does very slow, doesn't have any skills to do anything but make coffee and have some small talk.
So she sits at home, depressed and no goals in life, at the expense of society as minimum wage if more than what she is worth on the labour market.
|
On March 10 2016 04:26 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare.
2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. That's why minimum wage is bad, those that are weakest get less and they can't meet their basic needs while having 0 productivity.
Are you advocating for abolishing the minimum wage? How would that benefit anyone making it currently>
|
On March 10 2016 04:26 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare.
2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. That's why minimum wage is bad, those that are weakest get less and they can't meet their basic needs while having 0 productivity.
How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain.
|
On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:26 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare.
2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. That's why minimum wage is bad, those that are weakest get less and they can't meet their basic needs while having 0 productivity. How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain.
As I understand it, if you abolish the minimum wage, wages will then go up dramatically for minimum wage earners. Also, if we have a flat tax, federal revenues will skyrocket. That's what the free market fairy told me.
|
On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:
How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain.
Just because you set a minimum wage doesn't mean you get it.
Just give everyone minimum income, regardless of their job. Then allow them to take a contract for as low as 1 dollar a month. Now they have minimum income and a job.
Then, have zero tax on income. Tax consumption and pollution. And tax it hard. Get some supersmart economists to set up this system. You can tax consumption the more decadent it gets. Rich don't care. The more expensive their Rolls Royce, the happier they are. Put a 300% VAT on cars over 100,000 dollars, just as an example.
Then, some smaller taxes on corporate profits, capital and inheritance.
You don't want to tax stuff you want to encourage, like people working.
|
On March 10 2016 04:32 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:On March 10 2016 04:26 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 10 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
1) minimum wage is not about equality, its about ensuring people can meet their basic needs while being a productive member of society, as opposed to working and still requiring welfare.
2) you know what is worse for people then having a minimum wage? Getting even less. That's why minimum wage is bad, those that are weakest get less and they can't meet their basic needs while having 0 productivity. How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain. As I understand it, if you abolish the minimum wage, wages will then go up dramatically for minimum wage earners. Also, if we have a flat tax, federal revenues will skyrocket. That's what the free market fairy told me.
The free market has spoken! The invisible hand guides us all!(Disappears in a puff of smoke)
|
On March 10 2016 04:33 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:
How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain. Just because you set a minimum wage doesn't mean you get it. Just give everyone minimum income, regardless of their job. Then allow them to take a contract for as low as 1 dollar a month. Now they have minimum income and a job. Then, have zero tax on income. Tax consumption and pollution. And tax it hard. Then, some smaller taxes on corporate profits, capital and inheritance. You don't want to tax stuff you want to encourage, like people working.
Are any Republicans advocating Milton Friedman economics though?
|
On March 10 2016 04:33 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:
How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain. Just because you set a minimum wage doesn't mean you get it. Just give everyone minimum income, regardless of their job. Then allow them to take a contract for as low as 1 dollar a month. Now they have minimum income and a job. Then, have zero tax on income. Tax consumption and pollution. And tax it hard. Then, some smaller taxes on corporate profits, capital and inheritance. You don't want to tax stuff you want to encourage, like people working.
I'm fine with basic income.
Consumption tax hits poor people more since they consume a larger percentage of their money.
Oh and how does the government pay for anything with your plan since you just gutted all taxes.
|
On March 10 2016 04:33 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:
How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain. Just because you set a minimum wage doesn't mean you get it. Just give everyone minimum income, regardless of their job. Then allow them to take a contract for as low as 1 dollar a month. Now they have minimum income and a job. Then, have zero tax on income. Tax consumption and pollution. And tax it hard. Get some supersmart economists to set up this system. You can tax consumption the more decadent it gets. Rich don't care. The more expensive their Rolls Royce, the happier they are. Put a 300% VAT on cars over 100,000 dollars, just as an example. Then, some smaller taxes on corporate profits, capital and inheritance. You don't want to tax stuff you want to encourage, like people working.
This seems like a mix of Universal Basic Income and Serfdom.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 04:20 IgnE wrote:
lets talk about a paradigm shift in what it means to be materially wealthy now. a tech sector that produces profit by monetizing attention is fundamentally different than providing resources that encourage physical thriving. there can be some debate about what "thriving" means in relation to opening up opportunities (ie intellectual) but the predatory nature of much tech and advertising weighs heavily against such utility. we are at a point whete its technically possible to allow thriving of all individuals but thats a different question from capital accumulation. this contradiction is at the heart of our "free trade" disagreement.
uh what
creating spam is really a tiny area of the economy. the replacement industries in the u.s. ideally take advantage of decentralized and modular production and distribution networks. the advances in logistics and automated management of markets place platforms really have potential here.
btw part of my concern with privacy hawks is that they fail to recognize the immense economic value of security in the future use of the network. things like 3d printing require ability to weed out bad actors or the entire system is a no go
|
On March 10 2016 04:36 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh and how does the government pay for anything with your plan since you just gutted all taxes.
I increase tax. And the rich pay more as the rich have more capital, less income and buy more decadent stuff.
Currently, the 1% pay no income tax anyway. So lowering income tax to zero would benefit them exactly 0.
|
On March 10 2016 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This seems like a mix of Universal Basic Income and Serfdom.
Serfdom? Currently we force all people to work, regardless of it they want to work or not. Today, 'What do you do (in life)?" means: "What is your job?".
Under a basic income, people that don't want to work, don't.
|
On March 10 2016 04:33 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:
How would people get more money without a minimum wage. please explain. Just because you set a minimum wage doesn't mean you get it. Just give everyone minimum income, regardless of their job. Then allow them to take a contract for as low as 1 dollar a month. Now they have minimum income and a job. Then, have zero tax on income. Tax consumption and pollution. And tax it hard. Get some supersmart economists to set up this system. You can tax consumption the more decadent it gets. Rich don't care. The more expensive their Rolls Royce, the happier they are. Put a 300% VAT on cars over 100,000 dollars, just as an example. Then, some smaller taxes on corporate profits, capital and inheritance. You don't want to tax stuff you want to encourage, like people working.
Having a minimum wage is independant from having a minimum income though. Minimum wage is here to prevent workers from getting fucked by their employers, and from "unfair" competition with workers willing to be payed less, and as a way for society to recognize that even the least "impressive" job deserves a decent salary. Minimum income is here to prevent people from falling into extreme poverty and thus become vulnerable to many things. They don't have the same goals.
|
On March 10 2016 04:39 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This seems like a mix of Universal Basic Income and Serfdom. Serfdom? Currently we force all people to work, regardless of it they want to work or not. Today, 'What do you do (in life)?" means: "What is your job?". Under a basic income, people that don't want to work, don't.
Lets assume this magic system you created is viable and would lead to the implosion of whatever economy it was part of. This would create an amazing classiest system those who were working would control even more of the economy. And those who chose not to work would be completely subservient and dependent on the goverment. And they would doomed if the economy collapsed and reverted to a capitalistic system. The number of social issues with brain child would create are only matched by the economic problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
