|
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. |
United States42435 Posts
On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones underpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other.
If everyone is underpaid doesn't that mean that people are paid basically what they should be?
|
On June 13 2017 04:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones underpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. If everyone is underpaid doesn't that mean that people are paid basically what they should be?
There is a third group of rich people telling those two that other rich people might take away the poor peoples jobs if one of them makes more. And that unions will destroy all jobs and poor people will be more poor. Everyone who fights for workers is bad and kills jobs, except the job creators.
|
On June 13 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:39 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones underpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. If everyone is underpaid doesn't that mean that people are paid basically what they should be? There is a third group of rich people telling those two that other rich people might take away the poor peoples jobs if one of them makes more. And that unions will destroy all jobs and poor people will be more poor. Everyone who fights for workers is bad and kills jobs, except the job creators.
Remember, Smaug is the greatest job creator in lotr
|
On June 13 2017 04:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones underpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. If everyone is underpaid doesn't that mean that people are paid basically what they should be?
I'm guessing "everyone" isn't including the Walton's, NBA players, or even CPA's. Mostly the people making ~$50k or less are chronically underpaid.
For example the Walton's traded paying living wages for 5-15k people (instead taking corporate welfare) so they could afford a $150,000,000 dollar yacht.
Imagine for a moment I ran a business and instead of paying my workers a living wage I intentionally underpaid/scheduled them so that they had to live off of government subsidies. Then I took that money I saved by forcing tax payers to fill the gap, and used it to build myself a giant floating house.
If I understand correctly conservatives would say I was a good business person, and liberals would say we need diverse philanthropic billionaires to counter the selfish ones.
|
On June 13 2017 04:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones overpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. Presuming you mean underpaid and that people point to some other more respected but comparably underpaid professionals saying "FF workers can't make more than them!" Or do you mean that those making 10's or 100's of millions a year for having wealthy parents are paid too much? EDIT: You caught it. yeah sometimes I type too fast. but CEO's are massively overpaid as well. p.s. there is a bit of a legitimate argument in terms of what a minimum wage hike would do in poorer more rural communities but that's something separate and gets into the general issues with statewide pay. For example both my parents are teachers or have been and we have a good friend who's been teaching his whole life in San Jose (he's in his late 50s I think.) who has never even been able to consider buying a house.
homeownership is overrated; there's too much emotional cachet for it, and people often try to hard for it, and gov't pushes for it too much as a result; even when it's not a good fiscal or social plan.
though it would be nice if peopl ehad the money so they could if they wanted.
a mdoest minimum wage increase may be beneficial; but there are a lot of problems that can come from pushing wages too much using artificial means. it must be done cautiously.
|
So here's an...interesting...moment from the latest public cabinet meeting where Priebus says unto Trump "thank you for opportunity and blessing that you've given us to serve your agenda and the American people." Probably not as cult-like as it sounds and may be common in Cabinet meetings (what I've read suggests it isn't) but I bet it sure made Trump's ego feel great.
|
On June 13 2017 04:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 13 2017 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones overpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. Presuming you mean underpaid and that people point to some other more respected but comparably underpaid professionals saying "FF workers can't make more than them!" Or do you mean that those making 10's or 100's of millions a year for having wealthy parents are paid too much? EDIT: You caught it. yeah sometimes I type too fast. but CEO's are massively overpaid as well. p.s. there is a bit of a legitimate argument in terms of what a minimum wage hike would do in poorer more rural communities but that's something separate and gets into the general issues with statewide pay. For example both my parents are teachers or have been and we have a good friend who's been teaching his whole life in San Jose (he's in his late 50s I think.) who has never even been able to consider buying a house. homeownership is overrated; there's too much emotional cachet for it, and people often try to hard for it, and gov't pushes for it too much as a result; even when it's not a good fiscal or social plan. though it would be nice if peopl ehad the money so they could if they wanted. a mdoest minimum wage increase may be beneficial; but there are a lot of problems that can come from pushing wages too much using artificial means. it must be done cautiously.
Has there ever been a single documented case of us "pushing wages too much using artificial means" or is that just one of those things people say?
|
Yeah I wasn't trying to simplify the issue or pretend it's not a complicated, issue just pointing out that that it's sometimes an argument you hear trying to put two groups that aren't paid very well against each other. And I wasn't trying to say home ownership is the end all, just that you can't really afford a house on a teachers salary in the bay area so flat income across state has its problems.
as for everyone being underpaid obviously I wasn't being literal but pretty sure if you look at a basic US income mean and the percentages on each side there's going to be a lot more people on the left than the right. Also from a pure technical perspective Lebron even in a sense is underpaid if you look at the total value he adds to a franchise compared to his salary.
you could probably find a at least one union that went too far and it became unsustainable. I know in the bar industry their anticipating a minimum wage increase is going to speed up automation.
|
United States42435 Posts
On June 13 2017 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:39 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones underpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. If everyone is underpaid doesn't that mean that people are paid basically what they should be? I'm guessing "everyone" isn't including the Walton's, NBA players, or even CPA's. Mostly the people making ~$50k or less are chronically underpaid. For example the Walton's traded paying living wages for 5-15k people (instead taking corporate welfare) so they could afford a $150,000,000 dollar yacht. Imagine for a moment I ran a business and instead of paying my workers a living wage I intentionally underpaid/scheduled them so that they had to live off of government subsidies. Then I took that money I saved by forcing tax payers to fill the gap, and used it to build myself a giant floating house. If I understand correctly conservatives would say I was a good business person, and liberals would say we need diverse philanthropic billionaires to counter the selfish ones.
That's a problem of power discrepancies between the stakeholders in a business. The workers can't bargain on an even basis without collective bargaining.
|
|
|
We may see some novel Supreme Court cases involving the presidency during Trump's term lol.
|
So tired of people being distracted by this noise.
Trump isn't getting impeached or perp walked, it doesn't matter if he committed crimes, it matters if whatever he does convinces the constituents of at least 15 Republican Trump voting states that their senators should turn on their president.
Trump's business ties are possibly the last thing that would ever cause that to happen.
FWIW I've asked at least a couple times if anyone doubts Trump is personally enriching himself/family/friends off of the presidency and no one has suggested they do.
|
On June 13 2017 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:So tired of people being distracted by this noise. Trump isn't getting impeached or perp walked, it doesn't matter if he committed crimes, it matters if whatever he does convinces the constituents of at least 15 Republican Trump voting states that their senators should turn on their president. Trump's business ties are possibly the last thing that would ever cause that to happen. FWIW I've asked at least a couple times if anyone doubts Trump is personally enriching himself/family/friends off of the presidency and no one has suggested they do.
I don't think it's necessarily important from a grand political point of view or removing Trump point of view, but it's good to have the case moving forward such that whenever a future President is sworn in who does absolutely nothing to separate themselves from their fiscal situation they can't have mouthpieces saying "oh, it's just breaking tradition not the law and it would be so gosh darn hard for him to do" ad infinitum to defend their actions.
|
On June 13 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
one of the issues is that it's not always slums or urban wasteland turning into new developments, it's regular middle class-ish neighborhoods that are suddenly getting priced out. it's great for homeowners, but not so great for the significant proportion of people who rent. in atlanta rent has been bumping up double digits in a lot of places. So if a family rents a house for $1500/month and someone offers that home owner $2500/month, by what set of ethics can that home owner be disallowed from renting to the $2500/month tenant? This is the case that never makes sense to me. In Portland, there is extremely widespread disdain for home owners who rent to someone more expensive than their current tenant. But if someone offered me the ability to generate an additional $1000/month, I don't think I would ever bring myself to say no. My local government telling me I need to rent to someone poorer feels like madness. Do you at least see how if your family were renters that you might have a different perspective than you do since instead they own an extra house they don't even need?
Its not that I don't understand the situation, its that I don't see an ethical solution. I can't find a way to justify telling person A that they are not allowed to rent their house to person B. Wouldn't that mean that the land lords would be stuck in an essentially infinite lease? If they aren't allowed to rent to someone else at the end of a lease, are they even owners of the land at that point? How do we tell people they have to renew a lease for a given family and for the same price?
|
On June 13 2017 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:So tired of people being distracted by this noise. Trump isn't getting impeached or perp walked, it doesn't matter if he committed crimes, it matters if whatever he does convinces the constituents of at least 15 Republican Trump voting states that their senators should turn on their president. Trump's business ties are possibly the last thing that would ever cause that to happen. FWIW I've asked at least a couple times if anyone doubts Trump is personally enriching himself/family/friends off of the presidency and no one has suggested they do.
Are you mad that it is being reported on or that those three AGs from those states decided to bring the cases?
|
On June 13 2017 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:53 zlefin wrote:On June 13 2017 04:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 13 2017 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones overpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. Presuming you mean underpaid and that people point to some other more respected but comparably underpaid professionals saying "FF workers can't make more than them!" Or do you mean that those making 10's or 100's of millions a year for having wealthy parents are paid too much? EDIT: You caught it. yeah sometimes I type too fast. but CEO's are massively overpaid as well. p.s. there is a bit of a legitimate argument in terms of what a minimum wage hike would do in poorer more rural communities but that's something separate and gets into the general issues with statewide pay. For example both my parents are teachers or have been and we have a good friend who's been teaching his whole life in San Jose (he's in his late 50s I think.) who has never even been able to consider buying a house. homeownership is overrated; there's too much emotional cachet for it, and people often try to hard for it, and gov't pushes for it too much as a result; even when it's not a good fiscal or social plan. though it would be nice if peopl ehad the money so they could if they wanted. a mdoest minimum wage increase may be beneficial; but there are a lot of problems that can come from pushing wages too much using artificial means. it must be done cautiously. Has there ever been a single documented case of us "pushing wages too much using artificial means" or is that just one of those things people say?
in the US; I don't think so, not that I'm aware of at least. at least not on the mainland. I think there are some such issues in Puerto Rico though as the federal minimum wage of 7.25 is a bit high for how poor puerto rico is compared to mainland US. (details depend on the exact metric used (per capita wage, household income, something else), but overall in puerto rico the average is about 1/2 to 2/3 of what you find in the poorest mainland states, which is quite a big difference.
In Europe, quite possibly, it's certainly reached the point of being debateably so. It's part of the reason for their higher unemployment rates, and for very high youth unemployment in some places. High wages + benefits, combined with restrictions making it very hard to fire or lay off employees, means any employee becomes a sizeable expense for many years, even if you have a downturn. This makes people very relucant to hire anybody.
whether it's still a net gain for society is a hard thing to measure
|
On June 13 2017 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:So tired of people being distracted by this noise. Trump isn't getting impeached or perp walked, it doesn't matter if he committed crimes, it matters if whatever he does convinces the constituents of at least 15 Republican Trump voting states that their senators should turn on their president. Trump's business ties are possibly the last thing that would ever cause that to happen. FWIW I've asked at least a couple times if anyone doubts Trump is personally enriching himself/family/friends off of the presidency and no one has suggested they do. Are you mad that it is being reported on or that those three AGs from those states decided to bring the cases?
No I fully expect the actors to put on their show, what upsets me is that people are hanging on this crap like it's going somewhere.
On June 13 2017 05:23 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 04:53 zlefin wrote:On June 13 2017 04:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 13 2017 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 04:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Basically everyones overpaid and whenever a group tries to get a pay raise those opposed play the dumb "they shouldn't be making more than emts" argument and pitting two underpaid groups against each other. Presuming you mean underpaid and that people point to some other more respected but comparably underpaid professionals saying "FF workers can't make more than them!" Or do you mean that those making 10's or 100's of millions a year for having wealthy parents are paid too much? EDIT: You caught it. yeah sometimes I type too fast. but CEO's are massively overpaid as well. p.s. there is a bit of a legitimate argument in terms of what a minimum wage hike would do in poorer more rural communities but that's something separate and gets into the general issues with statewide pay. For example both my parents are teachers or have been and we have a good friend who's been teaching his whole life in San Jose (he's in his late 50s I think.) who has never even been able to consider buying a house. homeownership is overrated; there's too much emotional cachet for it, and people often try to hard for it, and gov't pushes for it too much as a result; even when it's not a good fiscal or social plan. though it would be nice if peopl ehad the money so they could if they wanted. a mdoest minimum wage increase may be beneficial; but there are a lot of problems that can come from pushing wages too much using artificial means. it must be done cautiously. Has there ever been a single documented case of us "pushing wages too much using artificial means" or is that just one of those things people say? in the US; I don't think so, not that I'm aware of at least. at least not on the mainland. I think there are some such issues in Puerto Rico though as the federal minimum wage of 7.25 is a bit high for how poor puerto rico is compared to mainland US. (details depend on the exact metric used (per capita wage, household income, something else), but overall in puerto rico the average is about 1/2 to 2/3 of what you find in the poorest mainland states, which is quite a big difference. In Europe, quite possibly, it's certainly reached the point of being debateably so. It's part of the reason for their higher unemployment rates, and for very high youth unemployment in some places. High wages + benefits, combined with restrictions making it very hard to fire or lay off employees, means any employee becomes a sizeable expense for many years, even if you have a downturn. This makes people very relucant to hire anybody. whether it's still a net gain for society is a hard thing to measure
So considering it's only maybe a real thing, shouldn't we not let the fear of slightly overshooting the wages we've kept chronically and perversely low for decades stop us?
Shouldn't we be more concerned about the prolonged stagnation than the potential to over-correct? That's not to say we shouldn't be mindful, but $15 minimum wage is comparable to wages we had during some of our best economic times. We're not really in any danger of reaching that overpaid threshold until we at least get back to some of our most successful rates right?
|
Norway28624 Posts
On June 13 2017 03:17 Doodsmack wrote:
that's amazing.
I like this as well: Quigley's Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness, or MAR-A-LAGO, Act, would require the White House to make its visitor logs public.
|
On June 13 2017 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
one of the issues is that it's not always slums or urban wasteland turning into new developments, it's regular middle class-ish neighborhoods that are suddenly getting priced out. it's great for homeowners, but not so great for the significant proportion of people who rent. in atlanta rent has been bumping up double digits in a lot of places. So if a family rents a house for $1500/month and someone offers that home owner $2500/month, by what set of ethics can that home owner be disallowed from renting to the $2500/month tenant? This is the case that never makes sense to me. In Portland, there is extremely widespread disdain for home owners who rent to someone more expensive than their current tenant. But if someone offered me the ability to generate an additional $1000/month, I don't think I would ever bring myself to say no. My local government telling me I need to rent to someone poorer feels like madness. Do you at least see how if your family were renters that you might have a different perspective than you do since instead they own an extra house they don't even need? Its not that I don't understand the situation, its that I don't see an ethical solution. I can't find a way to justify telling person A that they are not allowed to rent their house to person B. Wouldn't that mean that the land lords would be stuck in an essentially infinite lease? If they aren't allowed to rent to someone else at the end of a lease, are they even owners of the land at that point? How do we tell people they have to renew a lease for a given family and for the same price?
Luckily Oregon ordinances actually favor your viewpoint so I wouldn't get too worked up over it. Hopefully Chloe Eudaly enacts some more stuff to make you upset though. :D
I might sound salty but my landlord literally just spent a month trying to get us to leave because he thought this property was "his" and he could do what he wanted with it despite us being under lease. Decided to make some very silly threats with no legal basis. Doesn't help that he didn't seek legal counsel and just thought advice from his lovely renters association. was good enough. It was very upsetting for everyone involved on our end and extremely stressful despite us having legal reps. and knowing we are in the right all because he treated this place as a transaction and his property instead of someones home.
Also I doubt @greenhorizons thinks you have a right to own Multnomah people's land, just a guess. Just feel extremely blessed to be a home owner in Portland and know that assuming you didn't get it in last few years your profits are pretty high. Stop trying to screw over other ppl just to be greedy, thx.
|
On June 13 2017 05:28 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2017 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
one of the issues is that it's not always slums or urban wasteland turning into new developments, it's regular middle class-ish neighborhoods that are suddenly getting priced out. it's great for homeowners, but not so great for the significant proportion of people who rent. in atlanta rent has been bumping up double digits in a lot of places. So if a family rents a house for $1500/month and someone offers that home owner $2500/month, by what set of ethics can that home owner be disallowed from renting to the $2500/month tenant? This is the case that never makes sense to me. In Portland, there is extremely widespread disdain for home owners who rent to someone more expensive than their current tenant. But if someone offered me the ability to generate an additional $1000/month, I don't think I would ever bring myself to say no. My local government telling me I need to rent to someone poorer feels like madness. Do you at least see how if your family were renters that you might have a different perspective than you do since instead they own an extra house they don't even need? Its not that I don't understand the situation, its that I don't see an ethical solution. I can't find a way to justify telling person A that they are not allowed to rent their house to person B. Wouldn't that mean that the land lords would be stuck in an essentially infinite lease? If they aren't allowed to rent to someone else at the end of a lease, are they even owners of the land at that point? How do we tell people they have to renew a lease for a given family and for the same price? Luckily Oregon ordinances actually favor your viewpoint so I wouldn't get too worked up over it. Hopefully Chloe Eudaly enacts some more stuff to make you upset though. :D I might sound salty but my landlord literally just spent a month trying to get us to leave because he thought this property was "his" and he could do what he wanted with it despite us being under lease. Decided to make some very silly threats with no legal basis. Doesn't help that he didn't seek legal counsel and just thought advice from his lovely renters association. was good enough. It was very upsetting for everyone involved on our end and extremely stressful despite us having legal reps. and knowing we are in the right all because he treated this place as a transaction and his property instead of someones home. Also I doubt @greenhorizons thinks you have a right to own Multnomah people's land, just a guess. Just feel extremely blessed to be a home owner in Portland and know that assuming you didn't get it in last few years your profits are pretty high. Stop trying to screw over other ppl just to be greedy, thx.
Yeah there were a lot of layers there I simply didn't have time to peel so I decided to let it lay. Needless to say, my ethical framework looks different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
