|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter.
It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances.
On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years".
The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters.
|
On January 26 2021 04:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter. It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances. Show nested quote +On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years". The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters.
"Disapprove" doesn't mean anything until you stop voting. Other than that, its just ego masturbation. The various morons who voted for Trump while pretending to not approve of him don't get to have both. Until you stop voting for someone, you are approving them.
|
Northern Ireland25514 Posts
On January 26 2021 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2021 04:13 oBlade wrote:On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter. It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances. On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years". The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters. "Disapprove" doesn't mean anything until you stop voting. Other than that, its just ego masturbation. The various morons who voted for Trump while pretending to not approve of him don't get to have both. Until you stop voting for someone, you are approving them.
Well that or actually voice your disapproval. That also helps.
|
On January 26 2021 05:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2021 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 26 2021 04:13 oBlade wrote:On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter. It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances. On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years". The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters. "Disapprove" doesn't mean anything until you stop voting. Other than that, its just ego masturbation. The various morons who voted for Trump while pretending to not approve of him don't get to have both. Until you stop voting for someone, you are approving them. Well that or actually voice your disapproval. That also helps.
Not really. The GOP has made it really clear in the last 4 years that the only thing they care about is being primaried or voted out of their respective positions. How popular they are doesn't matter since they just spin it to say that anyone says that their policies aren't popular is fake news.
|
Mitch abandoned his obstruction in the name of preserving the filibuster. Probably because Manchin and maybe privately other conservative Democrats have already promised not to do anything about the filibuster.
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1353837256696606720?s=19
I wonder if Joe Manchin was prepared for all the attention he's going to be getting the next two years given any congressional failures are almost assuredly going to have the blame laid on him.
|
On January 26 2021 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2021 04:13 oBlade wrote:On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter. It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances. On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years". The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters. "Disapprove" doesn't mean anything until you stop voting. Other than that, its just ego masturbation. The various morons who voted for Trump while pretending to not approve of him don't get to have both. Until you stop voting for someone, you are approving them.
You've misunderstood, the leaders I was referring to are the Mitch McConnells and Paul Ryans of the party. Those types enjoy more loathing from their own party than their Democratic counterparts get from their base. The voters don't hate people who oppose Trump, they hate the traditional leadership so they went to Trump. You can't usurp a whole political party without vast dissatisfaction giving you that opportunity.
If by the way you grasp the dynamics of casting a vote, it's not an explicit approval of 100% of everything the person has ever done or said. There are many reasons people do or don't vote. Positions like Speaker or Leader or Whip are not directly elected and so easily end up with people who have little connection to the voter (and similarly scant approval or satisfaction).
|
On January 26 2021 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2021 04:13 oBlade wrote:On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter. It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances. On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years". The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters. "Disapprove" doesn't mean anything until you stop voting. Other than that, its just ego masturbation. The various morons who voted for Trump while pretending to not approve of him don't get to have both. Until you stop voting for someone, you are approving them.
I voted Macron on the second round of last french presidential election. I don't particularly approve of him, so I didn't vote for him on the first round (that's a bit like the primaries in the US i guess) and probably won't next time either. But since my fellow citizens, through their votes, decided it was between him and Marine Le Pen, voting for him was an absolute no brainer. I hope that the people chose better candidates to go through the second round in 2022, but if he is again facing Le Pen I will of course vote for him again.
It's hard to get a whole country to agree on someone. Most of the time, a lot of people will get to chose between someone they dislike a lot and someone they dislike a bit. And that's ok. You will almost never find a candidate that a whole half of the population agree is great.
It's hard to say if the uncompromising attitude of "I will not chose someone that is not exactly what I want" that a lot of left leaning voters here seem to adopt is a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy and representation work, or just immaturity. The trend seems to be to claim that someone who does 60% things you think are good and 40% are bad is not better that someone who does 100% of things you think are horrific, and that refusing to chose means that next time you will get that guy who will do 100% of the things you want.
It doesn't work that way.
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 26 2021 22:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2021 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 26 2021 04:13 oBlade wrote:On January 25 2021 07:03 Nevuk wrote:On January 25 2021 06:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. The senate majority only matters if they also hold the house in 2022 which is very unlikely given they lost seats in 2020 and will almost certainly have a repeat of 2010. The big disadvantage is that the incumbent tends to lose some house votes... But the bigger disadvantage in 2010 was that the democrats voting blocs always turned out at a lower rate than republicans. Since 2016, many of the demos who flipped to GOP were the lower turnout ones : uneducated white working class males. They're very hard to poll and are part of why 2018 polls were super accurate while 2020 were off significantly. I also don't think we're going to see turnout fall down to 2010 levels for a long time (they were super low then). If it is 2018 or 2020 patterns then it is going to be either a blowout or nailbiter. It will probably lean to nailbiter as extraordinary mail-in voting disappears, which will combine with voters not caring enough to go outside without 2 years of intravenous media input about the other side's president driving them to go to the polls. It's hard to muster that record enthusiasm without extraordinary circumstances. On January 25 2021 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2021 07:02 Sermokala wrote:
If trump seriously makes a third party it would be the greatest thing ever for the dems. Guarenteed wins in every election for a decade. Which is why Trump has been using it as a threat against republicans. He's trying to make them think the decision is "either rule with Trump in 2024 or don't rule again for 12 years". The wing of the party that decided from the 90s to have no platform other than stop the supposedly evil blue menace, while selling out as corporatist RINOs, decided that for themselves a long time ago. The voters have said as much, more than Trump. Republican voters in general disapprove of their leaders much more than Democratic voters. "Disapprove" doesn't mean anything until you stop voting. Other than that, its just ego masturbation. The various morons who voted for Trump while pretending to not approve of him don't get to have both. Until you stop voting for someone, you are approving them. I voted Macron on the second round of last french presidential election. I don't particularly approve of him, so I didn't vote for him on the first round (that's a bit like the primaries in the US i guess) and probably won't next time either. But since my fellow citizens, through their votes, decided it was between him and Marine Le Pen, voting for him was an absolute no brainer. I hope that the people chose better candidates to go through the second round in 2022, but if he is again facing Le Pen I will of course vote for him again. It's hard to get a whole country to agree on someone. Most of the time, a lot of people will get to chose between someone they dislike a lot and someone they dislike a bit. And that's ok. You will almost never find a candidate that a whole half of the population agree is great. It's hard to say if the uncompromising attitude of "I will not chose someone that is not exactly what I want" that a lot of left leaning voters here seem to adopt is a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy and representation work, or just immaturity. The trend seems to be to claim that someone who does 60% things you think are good and 40% are bad is not better that someone who does 100% of things you think are horrific, and that refusing to chose means that next time you will get that guy who will do 100% of the things you want. It doesn't work that way.
That was the 2016 election. I know lots of people who voted for "Trump", but they were really voting against Hillary and still disliked/disapproved of Trump's behavior. I will say, however, that if you voted for him in 2020 as a vote "against Biden" then I fail to understand your reasoning considering that Trump has proven to be a way worse public figure then Biden. The 2020 vote for Trump instead is saying that you were happy enough with the last 4 years to live with another 4 years of the Trump way.
|
|
|
Yeah exactly. That's where I think Mitch Mc Conell and co did a historical mistake. Trump is not - or shouldn't be - "40% you disapprove vs 60% you approve" so you put up with him to get your judges and your tax cuts. It's about erosion of democratic norms, the end of all decency and potentially historical damage done to american democracy and america's place in the world. That should dwarf all the justices and tax cuts in the world if your system of values is not totally fucked up.
Even a staunch conservative should prefer Biden or Clinton to Trump if he gives two shit about the country.
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 27 2021 00:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah exactly. That's where I think Mitch Mc Conell and co did a historical mistake. Trump is not - or shouldn't be - "40% you disapprove vs 60% you approve" so you put up with him to get your judges and your tax cuts. It's about erosion of democratic norms, the end of all decency and potentially historical damage done to american democracy and america's place in the world. That should dwarf all the justices and tax cuts in the world if your system of values is not totally fucked up.
Even a staunch conservative should prefer Biden or Clinton to Trump if he gives two shit about the country.
It's easy to get voters with this though:
The report also found that there’s a two-thirds chance there are zero to a maximum of 3.7 million job losses as a result of a $15 minimum wage.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-job-losses-from-raising-the-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-would-be-very-minimal-11611239650
Referencing some posts from the previous page of this thread, if a Covid Relief bill also forced an immediate $15 minimum wage, I have two reactions.
1. Wow, this is a BIG "F" you to me as a Floridian who as a fiscal conservative voted for the $15 bill in Florida that passed and it had a well mapped out timeline to get us there instead of changing immediately.
2. Worst case "3.7 million" jobs loss is massive. Why shove this down America's throat in a relief bill?
I get the argument for minimum wage adjustment, see my first point, but had I known this is something Biden would lead with as a forced policy on all states and an immediate change, yeah, I'd pause and think about 4 more years of Trump. This is the kind of shove it down your throat politics I hate from both sides.
|
On January 27 2021 00:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 00:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah exactly. That's where I think Mitch Mc Conell and co did a historical mistake. Trump is not - or shouldn't be - "40% you disapprove vs 60% you approve" so you put up with him to get your judges and your tax cuts. It's about erosion of democratic norms, the end of all decency and potentially historical damage done to american democracy and america's place in the world. That should dwarf all the justices and tax cuts in the world if your system of values is not totally fucked up.
Even a staunch conservative should prefer Biden or Clinton to Trump if he gives two shit about the country. It's easy to get voters with this though: Show nested quote +The report also found that there’s a two-thirds chance there are zero to a maximum of 3.7 million job losses as a result of a $15 minimum wage. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-job-losses-from-raising-the-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-would-be-very-minimal-11611239650Referencing some posts from the previous page of this thread, if a Covid Relief bill also forced an immediate $15 minimum wage, I have two reactions. 1. Wow, this is a BIG "F" you to me as a Floridian who as a fiscal conservative voted for the $15 bill in Florida that passed and it had a well mapped out timeline to get us there instead of changing immediately. 2. Worst case "3.7 million" jobs loss is massive. Why shove this down America's throat in a relief bill? I get the argument for minimum wage adjustment, see my first point, but had I known this is something Biden would lead with as a forced policy on all states and an immediate change, yeah, I'd pause and think about 4 more years of Trump. This is the kind of shove it down your throat politics I hate from both sides.
How is your take not the very same thing you claim to dislike? There are specific policies you construe as personal insults and if folks insult you, you'll consider siccing Trump on the country for another four years. That's as immature as it is inconsistent.
|
Oh the good old "it will destroy the market!". A timeless classic, used when child labor laws were instaured for example.
|
United States42839 Posts
Giving poor people disposable income has generally been shown to increase jobs.
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 27 2021 01:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 00:58 BisuDagger wrote:On January 27 2021 00:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah exactly. That's where I think Mitch Mc Conell and co did a historical mistake. Trump is not - or shouldn't be - "40% you disapprove vs 60% you approve" so you put up with him to get your judges and your tax cuts. It's about erosion of democratic norms, the end of all decency and potentially historical damage done to american democracy and america's place in the world. That should dwarf all the justices and tax cuts in the world if your system of values is not totally fucked up.
Even a staunch conservative should prefer Biden or Clinton to Trump if he gives two shit about the country. It's easy to get voters with this though: The report also found that there’s a two-thirds chance there are zero to a maximum of 3.7 million job losses as a result of a $15 minimum wage. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-job-losses-from-raising-the-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-would-be-very-minimal-11611239650Referencing some posts from the previous page of this thread, if a Covid Relief bill also forced an immediate $15 minimum wage, I have two reactions. 1. Wow, this is a BIG "F" you to me as a Floridian who as a fiscal conservative voted for the $15 bill in Florida that passed and it had a well mapped out timeline to get us there instead of changing immediately. 2. Worst case "3.7 million" jobs loss is massive. Why shove this down America's throat in a relief bill? I get the argument for minimum wage adjustment, see my first point, but had I known this is something Biden would lead with as a forced policy on all states and an immediate change, yeah, I'd pause and think about 4 more years of Trump. This is the kind of shove it down your throat politics I hate from both sides. How is your take not the very same thing you claim to dislike? There are specific policies you construe as personal insults and if folks insult you, you'll consider siccing Trump on the country for another four years. That's as immature as it is inconsistent.
It was an example of how people would respond to that information. Me personally, look at that information and the outcome is still to not vote for Trump, even if the election were held today. But honestly, it's that kind of stuff that drives either side crazy and forces them to vote for a really disliked candidate.
Discussion above aside, why should Florida hold a vote for progressive ideas like minimum wage, legalizing medicinal marijuana, health care laws when the Federal Government is going to pass a law that overrides everything and forces the state to be more progressive then the people want. The North Florida area has done a great job of embracing both red and blue ideas, I just don't want to see National Politics tear apart our local politics and disenfranchise the will of our people.
|
|
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 27 2021 01:08 Erasme wrote:
Oh the good old "it will destroy the market!". A timeless classic, used when child labor laws were instaured for example.
We voted to gradually get there in Florida. It's not a "destroy the market argument". It's a, "we already created a plan to do this based on what's best for our state, but then the President decided that didn't matter".
On January 27 2021 01:20 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think that taking wealth away from the super rich is going to hurt anyone other than the super rich. And even them it won't really impact. Companies like Amazon not paying taxes and Bezos on his way to trillions is not helping even the middle or upper class. I just don't get it.
The argument holds for the small businesses that have to take on the challenge of $15 an hour from $7.50. It's doubling the pay for ALL of their employees within a year instead of having several years to plan for that payment change like we are doing in Florida.
|
If a business cant afford to operate while paying employees a living wage that business does not deserve to survive.
|
While a higher minimum wage would result in employers of minimum wage workers to employ fewer overall workers to compensate for the higher wage costs in the short term, I believe over time the increased income and spending from these (still shit, but) better compensated low-income workers would result in jobs having to cater to their increased consumption, potentially balancing out the previous loss of jobs.
Theoretically it is financially sound. There's of course the ethical aspect of paying employees a living wage as well, but I suppose for pro-market darwinist nietzchians, what matters is how much exploitation you can get away with, not how beneficial you can make your money work for your community while still growing your wealth.
Edit: There's of course also the entire co-dependency of supplier and consumer which tends to be ignored when arguing for shit wages, but meh. I feel my argument is making no sense, I should make some dinner.
|
On January 27 2021 01:25 Zambrah wrote:
If a business cant afford to operate while paying employees a living wage that business does not deserve to survive.
Said another way, if the cost of allowing average people to own and operate small businesses is the perpetuation of a sub-living wage underclass of labor that cannot survive without welfare, we need to either acknowledge that welfare is a small business subsidy (and prioritize it in lockstep with our adulation for small business accordingly) or take a hard look at what exactly small businesses are providing us at that great of a cost. Instead, we stigmatize and make obtaining welfare incredibly onerous and immunize small businesses from wage scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
