|
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. |
On March 10 2016 07:10 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
There's actually more reasons to be in favour of a basic income, but I was arguing against minimum wage, and giving an alternative.
We have to dispel the myth that the minimum wage is good for the poor. It is not good for all the poor. You have to be able to admit that there are people that are less productive than minimum wage. If you can't just put the minimum wage at the average income, or double that. I hope you can see it now.
I have never heard a solution from the so called left wing on this issue. These people are literally banned from working, unless you want companies to be forced to hire them. They want to work, they can work, there are companies that would hire them, but they cannot get a job.
We already have a race to the bottom and we can't be stopping it with a higher minimum wage. It is bad, but you circumvent the wage issue with basic income, and improve working conditions on the other facets of the race to the bottom.
The lefts solution is minimum wage. What are you arguing here?
No they would not be better of without minimum wage.
Yes they would have a job. That job would pay 1 dollar an hour and be just enough to buy lunch 5 days a week. They would still be on the full amount of government welfare and there would be 0 difference to not being employed at all.
|
How is being above the poverty line with a full time job worse than being around the poverty line, sitting at home doing nothing?
Who is going to hire you when you are valued below minimum wage and you have been sitting at home jobless for the last 2 years? It's a life sentence of unemployment. What about the kids who see their parent being unemployed all their youth?
|
On March 10 2016 07:37 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
How is being above the poverty line with a full time job worse than being around the poverty line, sitting at home doing nothing?
Who is going to hire you when you are valued below minimum wage and you have been sitting at home jobless for the last 2 years? It's a life sentence of unemployment. What about the kids who see their parent being unemployed all their youth?
How are they above the poverty line when their work is worth less then the minimum wage, The minumum wage barely puts you above the poverty line.
Your not going to be above it working for 1 dollar an hour.
Your saying the US would be a better place to work if we had Bangladesh style sweatshops.
christ.
|
idk I think minimum wage has a purpose in most Western systems at the moment. It has serious negative consequences but it also prevents a lot of abuse.
It's better to replace minimum wage and the entire welfare system with a universal wage, but I don't think ditching the minimum wage in isolation is a good idea.
|
Because they get money from the government AND money from their employer.
And they do something, and they are being productive, in their own way, and they get a chance to improve.
Are you even reading?
|
RAMALLAH, West Bank — A Palestinian on a stabbing rampage on Tuesday along a coastal promenade near Tel Aviv killed an American combat veteran who was a graduate student at Vanderbilt University.
The attacks occurred along a popular seaside boulevard in Jaffa, about a mile away from where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was meeting with a former president of Israel, Shimon Peres.
The stabbing attacks, carried out over 20 minutes, came just after Mr. Biden arrived for a two-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday. NYT
|
On March 10 2016 07:37 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
How is being above the poverty line with a full time job worse than being around the poverty line, sitting at home doing nothing?
Who is going to hire you when you are valued below minimum wage and you have been sitting at home jobless for the last 2 years? It's a life sentence of unemployment. What about the kids who see their parent being unemployed all their youth?
To be clear, you are talking about removing the minimum wage and replacing it with another system. Not removing it and not replacing it.
|
On March 10 2016 07:28 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 07:12 Plansix wrote:
My main concern with the process is when you do when people start behaving in ways that could cause the system to fail. Child birth is one of those issues. How many children on “basic services” be allowed to have? Are people willing to legislate that? And the issue of raising the “basic service” pay amount as a political football to seek votes.
But one of the smaller EU governments can take a swing before the US burns that bridge.
edit: I am fully in support of welfare and other safety net services. People starving or being homeless just leads to crime, so the best way to prevent that is to provide them with basic welfare. That's the point though. For a person who is unemployed, basic welfare is essentially the same thing as a universal wage, just with a whole bunch of hoops and bureaucracy piled on top to make it less efficient. If it's not the same thing, people on welfare must be living below the poverty line, or at least buried in crippling uncertainty and make-work that's not going to keep them all out of homelessness and crime when their numbers explode in 10 years. When the numbers get high enough, there's a point where it becomes more efficient to just scrap the red tape and pay everyone. A world with a universal wage is going to be both morally and economically superior to a world with like 50% of the population on shitty means-tested strings-attached welfare. I don't know exactly what strings you guys use, but ours are having pretty stupid side-effects even at like 6% unemployment. Of course, a universal wage is certain to introduce new problems and nobody can predict how many people will drop out of the workforce entirely (which is why I'm also waiting for some Scandinavian country to do it first), but it's still the only promising answer to the automation crisis I've seen.
At least when it's first applied it's more likely to be "barely enough to survive" and not "enough to have confortable middle class welfare", so I doubt it'll have any large effect on the workforce.
|
Why isn't it obvious to you and him. He cites my post where 'basic income' is in the first sentence.
Read people. Or stay away.
|
On March 10 2016 07:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Because they get money from the government AND money from their employer.
And they do something, and they are being productive, in their own way, and they get a chance to improve.
Are you even reading?
So now the people, through taxes are subsidising every business that employs a job that is not worth the minumum wage....
and those people are still on 100% of government assistance because they dont make enough to live off.
How does this solve anything ffs.
"They are productive working in a sweatshop" is not some magic sentence that makes life better ffs.
|
On March 10 2016 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 07:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Because they get money from the government AND money from their employer.
And they do something, and they are being productive, in their own way, and they get a chance to improve.
Are you even reading?
So now the people, through taxes are subsidising every business that employs a job that is not worth the minumum wage.... and those people are still on 100% of government assistance because they dont make enough to live off. How does this solve anything ffs. "They are productive working in a sweatshop" is not some magic sentence that makes life better ffs.
They are dependent on other people anyway. That's the problem. There are people that just deny this. They think people need more though love or incentives and then these degenerates will become standup productive citizens.
Yes, there are hardworking talented poor people out there. Not denying that. I am talking about the effect of minimum wage. The most extreme cases of it is on these with the least opportunities. There's people that can't even read, are so low energy they can never work at a normal person's pace. They will be weeded almost everywhere.
There are people who aren't worth the minimum wage in the free market. We cannot wave a magic wand and change that.
We either subsidize them, or we let them sleep on the street and we'll watch them steal, leech of parents/friends, deal drugs or whatever these people are doing now.
As for working in sweatshops. They get basic income. So they do not have to work. If they like to work in a sweat shop for 1 dollar a hour, now they actually can.
You realize that right now there are people in the US working in sweatshops already?
|
So your argument is:
The system is broken so lets break it alltogether?
|
On March 10 2016 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 07:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Because they get money from the government AND money from their employer.
And they do something, and they are being productive, in their own way, and they get a chance to improve.
Are you even reading?
So now the people, through taxes are subsidising every business that employs a job that is not worth the minumum wage.... and those people are still on 100% of government assistance because they dont make enough to live off. How does this solve anything ffs. "They are productive working in a sweatshop" is not some magic sentence that makes life better ffs.
they will not work in a shitty sweatshop though, since they have a basic income they can pick and choose which work is worth their time... it will lead to unpleasent but low barrier of entry jobs getting paid higher (cleaning, maintenance, waste disposal etc) and to more self improvement, community and societal work, that currently is prohibited by people needing to eat first...
|
The 15th will be tough, but then Hillary may lose 8 in a row. Maybe more if Bernie does in the NY debate what he did in the Flint debate.
In that case she might lose the next 15 out of 15 (after the 15th).
|
I gave the coffee lady example. Give me another example.
Cleaning public transport stations.
Right now you have a team of 2 or 3 come in, highly efficient. They never talk. They quickly move through their routine. They have to do what to do fast, or they get too expensive. If they show weakness, they are fired and replaced next month by someone else.
Instead, you can hire 10 people for 1/10th of the minimum wage. They just kind of hang around in the public transit area. They radiate a positive effect (hopefully). They chat half of the time, with each other or travelers that have time and feel like, work the other half. They give people directions. They are there because they want to. They keep the station clean.
There's an old lady around? They can carry her bag up the stairs. They don't care. They are there anyway, because they want to, no tight schedule, no pressure to be fired.
There are there to be nice people, not cleaning robots.
You rehumanise society AND fix poverty.
|
On March 10 2016 07:54 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 10 2016 07:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Because they get money from the government AND money from their employer.
And they do something, and they are being productive, in their own way, and they get a chance to improve.
Are you even reading?
So now the people, through taxes are subsidising every business that employs a job that is not worth the minumum wage.... and those people are still on 100% of government assistance because they dont make enough to live off. How does this solve anything ffs. "They are productive working in a sweatshop" is not some magic sentence that makes life better ffs. They are dependent on other people anyway. That's the problem. There are people that just deny this. They think people need more though love or incentives and then these degenerates will become standup productive citizens. Yes, there are hardworking talented poor people out there. Not denying that. I am talking about the effect of minimum wage. The most extreme cases of it is on these with the least opportunities. There's people that can't even read, are so low energy they can never work at a normal person's pace. They will be weeded almost everywhere. There are people who aren't worth the minimum wage in the free market. We cannot wave a magic wand and change that. We either subsidize them, or we let them sleep on the street and we'll watch them steal, leech of parents/friends, deal drugs or whatever these people are doing now. As for working in sweatshops. They get basic income. So they do not have to work. If they like to work in a sweat shop for 1 dollar a hour, now they actually can. You realize that right now there are people in the US working in sweatshops already?
Please be clearer what your arguing about...
Yes if you introduce basic income you can get rid of minimum wage.
|
On March 10 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:
Please be clearer what your arguing about...
Yes if you introduce basic income you can get rid of minimum wage.
It is in the first sentence. Besides reading correctly and not being arrogant about it when you don't, maybe you should be more open to my ideas. You seem just like the type of person that would benefit from them one day.
User was warned for this post
|
.....that was his entire point. The very first post you quoted, which started this whole thing, began with a comment about basic income.
At a certain point I think it got lost, but as the original quoter you have no excuse.
|
On March 10 2016 07:54 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 10 2016 07:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Because they get money from the government AND money from their employer.
And they do something, and they are being productive, in their own way, and they get a chance to improve.
Are you even reading?
So now the people, through taxes are subsidising every business that employs a job that is not worth the minumum wage.... and those people are still on 100% of government assistance because they dont make enough to live off. How does this solve anything ffs. "They are productive working in a sweatshop" is not some magic sentence that makes life better ffs. They are dependent on other people anyway. That's the problem. There are people that just deny this. They think people need more though love or incentives and then these degenerates will become standup productive citizens. Yes, there are hardworking talented poor people out there. Not denying that. I am talking about the effect of minimum wage. The most extreme cases of it is on these with the least opportunities. There's people that can't even read, are so low energy they can never work at a normal person's pace. They will be weeded almost everywhere. There are people who aren't worth the minimum wage in the free market. We cannot wave a magic wand and change that. We either subsidize them, or we let them sleep on the street and we'll watch them steal, leech of parents/friends, deal drugs or whatever these people are doing now. As for working in sweatshops. They get basic income. So they do not have to work. If they like to work in a sweat shop for 1 dollar a hour, now they actually can. You realize that right now there are people in the US working in sweatshops already? Talk about shoving a stick in the compassionate liberal's anthill. I hope you keep doing long thought-out posts, because that's the only way to advance the societal argument. If everything is willful mischaracterization by post two, you've basically won.
|
Even if you replace minimum wage with nothing, those with the worst opportunities, and those some claim are best off with a minimum wage, are still better off without it. These people were never getting minimum wage anyway.
So in that sense, the most was never wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
