|
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 |
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On February 04 2021 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I understood his issue to be that he's happy with the timeline Florida is doing it at, but he doesn't like the timeline the Biden admin wants to aim for, and he dislikes that they are trying to overrule the Florida timeline, specifically because he thinks the Biden timeline is so quick that what he perceives as a positive policy will end up having negative consequences.
I think it seems like a weird single issue of a hill to die on, but oh well.
It's less about the issue and more about the state bills. I prioritize what the state wants over what the federal government wants. I have one house member (27 if you count the state) and 2 senators in D.C. doing what they can to represent my state. The bills we pass as a state are voted by popular choice by all of our people. I would defend any bill in the same manner. If I disagree with a bill, I need to work to inform my community and educate them to vote differently. My representatives in D.C. aren't there to deliberate over how to change any other state. They are there to do things like request funds for preserving our Everglades in the federal budget, so that Florida can continue to attract tourism and contribute to the GDP.
And no, I don't believe minimum wage should be resolved in a Covid Relief bill. My message is to dems is to keep your eye on what's important related to Covid.
|
On February 04 2021 04:29 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I understood his issue to be that he's happy with the timeline Florida is doing it at, but he doesn't like the timeline the Biden admin wants to aim for, and he dislikes that they are trying to overrule the Florida timeline, specifically because he thinks the Biden timeline is so quick that what he perceives as a positive policy will end up having negative consequences.
I think it seems like a weird single issue of a hill to die on, but oh well.
It's less about the issue and more about the state bills. I prioritize what the state wants over what the federal government wants. I have one house member (27 if you count the state) and 2 senators in D.C. doing what they can to represent my state. The bills we pass as a state are voted by popular choice by all of our people. I would defend any bill in the same manner. If I disagree with a bill, I need to work to inform my community and educate them to vote differently. My representatives in D.C. aren't there to deliberate over how to change any other state. They are there to do things like request funds for preserving our Everglades in the federal budget, so that Florida can continue to attract tourism and contribute to the GOP. And no, I don't believe minimum wage should be resolved in a Covid Relied bill. My message is to dems is to keep your eye on what's important related to Covid.
Are you saying your understanding is that senators only deal with issues pertaining to the state they represent?
|
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On February 04 2021 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 04:29 BisuDagger wrote:On February 04 2021 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I understood his issue to be that he's happy with the timeline Florida is doing it at, but he doesn't like the timeline the Biden admin wants to aim for, and he dislikes that they are trying to overrule the Florida timeline, specifically because he thinks the Biden timeline is so quick that what he perceives as a positive policy will end up having negative consequences.
I think it seems like a weird single issue of a hill to die on, but oh well.
It's less about the issue and more about the state bills. I prioritize what the state wants over what the federal government wants. I have one house member (27 if you count the state) and 2 senators in D.C. doing what they can to represent my state. The bills we pass as a state are voted by popular choice by all of our people. I would defend any bill in the same manner. If I disagree with a bill, I need to work to inform my community and educate them to vote differently. My representatives in D.C. aren't there to deliberate over how to change any other state. They are there to do things like request funds for preserving our Everglades in the federal budget, so that Florida can continue to attract tourism and contribute to the GOP. And no, I don't believe minimum wage should be resolved in a Covid Relief bill. My message is to dems is to keep your eye on what's important related to Covid. Are you saying your understanding is that senators only deal with issues pertaining to the state they represent?
No, you are being to literal with my words and I'm being to lazy with my explanations since I'm in the middle of work. I'll have that discussion another time and apologize for my poorly worded interpretation of the house and senate.
|
On February 04 2021 04:29 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I understood his issue to be that he's happy with the timeline Florida is doing it at, but he doesn't like the timeline the Biden admin wants to aim for, and he dislikes that they are trying to overrule the Florida timeline, specifically because he thinks the Biden timeline is so quick that what he perceives as a positive policy will end up having negative consequences.
I think it seems like a weird single issue of a hill to die on, but oh well.
It's less about the issue and more about the state bills. I prioritize what the state wants over what the federal government wants. I have one house member (27 if you count the state) and 2 senators in D.C. doing what they can to represent my state. The bills we pass as a state are voted by popular choice by all of our people. I would defend any bill in the same manner. If I disagree with a bill, I need to work to inform my community and educate them to vote differently. My representatives in D.C. aren't there to deliberate over how to change any other state. They are there to do things like request funds for preserving our Everglades in the federal budget, so that Florida can continue to attract tourism and contribute to the GOP. And no, I don't believe minimum wage should be resolved in a Covid Relied bill. My message is to dems is to keep your eye on what's important related to Covid.
I never understand this states-first attitude. You almost make policy sound like a zero-sum game. 50 states all deliberating to get the best deal for their own constituents. What is the virtue of this approach, as opposed to a nationally unified approach to policy (as long as governments are elected democratically)?
I would understand if it were a question of merit of the policy, but that is not the argument here. The contention simply appears to be that states should have more autonomy to enact the policy on their own, even though that obviously comes with a lot of red tape and political strife. If a policy has evidence to support it, and it is backed by western ethical values, what is the reason for not taking a homogenous national approach to minimize friction? What is the virtue of increasing the power of individual states?
|
|
|
United States10172 Posts
I think one argument to consider about minimum wage is: if everything gets more expensive, then theoretically nothing changes in society and all we did was cause inflation, which means those people at the top are brought down closer because they're still buying pretty much the same thing as everyone else. So minimum wage people may not see a real difference, but the middle-upper middle class will see the largest impact.
The real thing we would need to watch is if those with disposable incomes would still buy the same products that are now made more expensive due to a higher minimum wage. If yes, then jobs SHOULDNT really go away as much as naysayers think. If not, then we would probably see layoffs to compensate for less revenue from people not buying as much.
It also gives those with minimum wage more options with their money. Say their groceries and other needs might proportionally increase with the rise of minimum wage, but if they can save enough, they'll have more options of what they can buy in other goods/services if those prices don't change. Hypothetically, if they now make 15 dollars/hour up from let's say 8-10 dollar/hour, normally they might only be able to afford a normal mediocre toothbrush. If toothbrush prices stay the same, then with the extra income they might be able to afford better electric toothbrushes. Now, should they be spending their extra money on electric toothbrushes? Probably not, but that's just an example of additional opportunities and goods that might open themselves up to a higher minimum wage earner.
Further, if a company makes their goods outside the US anyways, then prices of the goods shouldn't actually go up by much, if anything. Of course, companies might also recognize that even if the costs of their goods stay the same, people making more money as a result of minimum wage who buy their products might now raise the price to compensate, generating more profit per good sold.
Maybe I'm just wrong about everything though, i'm more or less just thinking to myself about what arguments have been made in favor of and against minimum wage. Feel free to correct my logic or counter some of these points.
|
United States42804 Posts
On February 04 2021 07:30 FlaShFTW wrote:
I think one argument to consider about minimum wage is: if everything gets more expensive, then theoretically nothing changes in society and all we did was cause inflation, which means those people at the top are brought down closer because they're still buying pretty much the same thing as everyone else. So minimum wage people may not see a real difference, but the middle-upper middle class will see the largest impact.
The real thing we would need to watch is if those with disposable incomes would still buy the same products that are now made more expensive due to a higher minimum wage. If yes, then jobs SHOULDNT really go away as much as naysayers think. If not, then we would probably see layoffs to compensate for less revenue from people not buying as much.
It also gives those with minimum wage more options with their money. Say their groceries and other needs might proportionally increase with the rise of minimum wage, but if they can save enough, they'll have more options of what they can buy in other goods/services if those prices don't change. Hypothetically, if they now make 15 dollars/hour up from let's say 8-10 dollar/hour, normally they might only be able to afford a normal mediocre toothbrush. If toothbrush prices stay the same, then with the extra income they might be able to afford better electric toothbrushes. Now, should they be spending their extra money on electric toothbrushes? Probably not, but that's just an example of additional opportunities and goods that might open themselves up to a higher minimum wage earner.
Further, if a company makes their goods outside the US anyways, then prices of the goods shouldn't actually go up by much, if anything. Of course, companies might also recognize that even if the costs of their goods stay the same, people making more money as a result of minimum wage who buy their products might now raise the price to compensate, generating more profit per good sold.
Maybe I'm just wrong about everything though, i'm more or less just thinking to myself about what arguments have been made in favor of and against minimum wage. Feel free to correct my logic or counter some of these points.
This is falsifiable. Compare the price of a hamburger in two adjacent counties with different minimum wages to test the theory that minimum wage increases are cancelled out by increased costs of goods.
|
If a minimum wage is feasible is kinda easy to explore.
Do the top guys in a company earn tens of multiples of the lower employes? Well... Get the money there. Chances are, you will still attract decent talents for salaries of 100k-1mio. instead of 1++++ mio..
Money generating more money is an entire other problem than wage imbalance or the general wage inequality. The wage inequality is actually pretty easily to solve. You still have billionaires if you solve that one but it takes a hell of a lot of pressure away from the lower incomes.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On February 04 2021 07:30 FlaShFTW wrote:
I think one argument to consider about minimum wage is: if everything gets more expensive, then theoretically nothing changes in society and all we did was cause inflation, which means those people at the top are brought down closer because they're still buying pretty much the same thing as everyone else. So minimum wage people may not see a real difference, but the middle-upper middle class will see the largest impact.
The real thing we would need to watch is if those with disposable incomes would still buy the same products that are now made more expensive due to a higher minimum wage. If yes, then jobs SHOULDNT really go away as much as naysayers think. If not, then we would probably see layoffs to compensate for less revenue from people not buying as much.
It also gives those with minimum wage more options with their money. Say their groceries and other needs might proportionally increase with the rise of minimum wage, but if they can save enough, they'll have more options of what they can buy in other goods/services if those prices don't change. Hypothetically, if they now make 15 dollars/hour up from let's say 8-10 dollar/hour, normally they might only be able to afford a normal mediocre toothbrush. If toothbrush prices stay the same, then with the extra income they might be able to afford better electric toothbrushes. Now, should they be spending their extra money on electric toothbrushes? Probably not, but that's just an example of additional opportunities and goods that might open themselves up to a higher minimum wage earner.
Further, if a company makes their goods outside the US anyways, then prices of the goods shouldn't actually go up by much, if anything. Of course, companies might also recognize that even if the costs of their goods stay the same, people making more money as a result of minimum wage who buy their products might now raise the price to compensate, generating more profit per good sold.
Maybe I'm just wrong about everything though, i'm more or less just thinking to myself about what arguments have been made in favor of and against minimum wage. Feel free to correct my logic or counter some of these points.
There's also the supply and demand angle. If you have more money you will spend more (most people don't save), so there will be more demand for things, or maybe for higher priced versions of the same thing (like the tooth brush example). With more demand, increased prices will follow, it doesn't matter if you even make your product in the same place.
That being said, the impact of the inflation is highly overstated. How many people actually earn minimum wage? 10% of the working population? 20? 40?
If the wage of EVERYONE increased, then you would see inflation. But not everyone get's paid that, so the inflation impact will not be as big as many believe. If you increase the minimum wage for example, 10%, and only 10% of the population earns minimum wage, the prices might increase 1% (Just making up numbers here), so even then, it was worth it.
|
See, there is a fundemantel failure in this. People that can DO SAVE, they save plenty. The issue arises if you got a middle class that can't save anymore.
|
On February 04 2021 08:37 [Phantom] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 07:30 FlaShFTW wrote:
I think one argument to consider about minimum wage is: if everything gets more expensive, then theoretically nothing changes in society and all we did was cause inflation, which means those people at the top are brought down closer because they're still buying pretty much the same thing as everyone else. So minimum wage people may not see a real difference, but the middle-upper middle class will see the largest impact.
The real thing we would need to watch is if those with disposable incomes would still buy the same products that are now made more expensive due to a higher minimum wage. If yes, then jobs SHOULDNT really go away as much as naysayers think. If not, then we would probably see layoffs to compensate for less revenue from people not buying as much.
It also gives those with minimum wage more options with their money. Say their groceries and other needs might proportionally increase with the rise of minimum wage, but if they can save enough, they'll have more options of what they can buy in other goods/services if those prices don't change. Hypothetically, if they now make 15 dollars/hour up from let's say 8-10 dollar/hour, normally they might only be able to afford a normal mediocre toothbrush. If toothbrush prices stay the same, then with the extra income they might be able to afford better electric toothbrushes. Now, should they be spending their extra money on electric toothbrushes? Probably not, but that's just an example of additional opportunities and goods that might open themselves up to a higher minimum wage earner.
Further, if a company makes their goods outside the US anyways, then prices of the goods shouldn't actually go up by much, if anything. Of course, companies might also recognize that even if the costs of their goods stay the same, people making more money as a result of minimum wage who buy their products might now raise the price to compensate, generating more profit per good sold.
Maybe I'm just wrong about everything though, i'm more or less just thinking to myself about what arguments have been made in favor of and against minimum wage. Feel free to correct my logic or counter some of these points. There's also the supply and demand angle. If you have more money you will spend more (most people don't save), so there will be more demand for things, or maybe for higher priced versions of the same thing (like the tooth brush example). With more demand, increased prices will follow, it doesn't matter if you even make your product in the same place. That being said, the impact of the inflation is highly overstated. How many people actually earn minimum wage? 10% of the working population? 20? 40? If the wage of EVERYONE increased, then you would see inflation. But not everyone get's paid that, so the inflation impact will not be as big as many believe. If you increase the minimum wage for example, 10%, and only 10% of the population earns minimum wage, the prices might increase 1% (Just making up numbers here), so even then, it was worth it. a quick google tells me about 2% of the US makes minimum wage. So yeah raising minimum wage is unlikely to cause inflation.
Although those making under 15 dollars an hour is almost 40%? that could actually have an impact.
|
Northern Ireland25501 Posts
I would assume that any increase in the price of goods, which as Kwark mentioned re hamburgers doesn’t seem likely to be the case is hugely outweighed by the disposable income gain above costs such as rent. Not to mention vs student debt repayment, or medical debt.
Get that money circulating rather than have a vast swathe of people who are barely treading water, if even.
That and ideally clamp the fuck down on predatory landlords, would also be nice. If people are going to be kept on the breadline by rent prices, well they should still have easy access to redress a failure of landlords to provide their service.
Assuming the US experience is similar to here mind, where in even the most egregious cases I’ve encountered amongst friends and acquaintances they just sucked it up because they couldn’t afford legal proceedings.
|
In Congress related news, the Republican Party is clearly the QAnon Party at this stage with half of the house backing a conspiracy theorist who had a direct tie to the Capitol insurrection. There’s no governance or policy from these guys, it’s all grievance politics and ramming through as many rule of law shit so the majority don’t get anything good in life.
With regards to the income chat, there’s countless studies showing that things like rent don’t increase 1:1 with wage increases. Simple logic would tell you that even without studies, landlords don’t see a 20% rise in minimum wage and decide to pump up the prices by 20% because not everyone is earning minimum wage.
|
On February 04 2021 01:31 Nevuk wrote:American slavery was pretty uniquely awful in history, iirc, for a whole host of reasons (most other competitors for how awful it was involved european colonizers and a native population). Most places with slavery before it didn't have it include the "passes on to children" part, and slavery was all over the place as to how good or bad it could be (varying from something like the current working middle class to something like prison conditions). America also still practices slavery. It's in the 13th amendment as an acceptable punishment for crimes and a small handful of states use involuntary unpaid labor in their prisons. Last time I brought this up in the thread people said "but that isn't SLAVERY", no, that's exactly slavery. It just isn't as awful as the chattel slavery practiced pre Civil War. (It's also somewhat pointless : it doesn't really save much money and the labor can obviously only be used on manual, very unskilled labor). Most other states pay way below the minimum wage for prisoners which isn't much better (on the lines of .50 an hour and then some even charge the prisoners for items like tooth brushes). Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I am glad McConnell is making a fuss about budget reconciliation, literally the exact same strategy he used. Republican arguments have never been good faith, but everything during Trump’s blemish on American history made it so much more clear. Biden and the democrats don’t have nearly the pressure to “reach across the aisle” as they did during Obama’s presidency. If they push this package through, I’ll have faith in democrats again. Limited and conditional faith, but at the core, democrats need to be willing to act like they won and use their power. Trump showed Americans his vision. People want to see and feel vision and leadership. If Biden and Democrats do the same thing, I think they can win again in 2022 and 2024 Biden being white is a big advantage he has over Obama here, in that no one will blindly back McConnell purely out of unconscious racism. (McConnell always complained that Obama lectured him).
@Slavery unique to the USA:
Ancient Rome had for roughly half of it's history more slaves than citizens and for a large period they didn't have any noticeable rights and then it gradually improved. And the "passes on to children" part was definitely part of it. Slavery was a large part of the economy of most militaristic antique nations. But I agree that slavery was pretty terrible in the USA compared to most other similarly developed nations at the time.
@Slavery in Europe in the 16th+ century:
Slave trade was practiced by European nations, but most post-antique western European societies didn't have significant amounts of slaves on their home turf. It was mainly a thing within the colonial nations where the European nations did all kinds of horrible things. There were some exceptions like the aforementioned zoo where people with other skin colors were enslaved and treated as a curiosity, but unlike the USA very few European societies actually had an economy that was built on slavery.
So the USA forbidding slavery wasn't exactly progressive when in most of Europe slavery hadn't played a significant role for roughly 800 years by then and the only reason it was having a bit of a resurgence was the fact that the USA was so liberal about it in the first place that it created a market. Also the fundamental issue with slavery at the time was the supremacist racist imperialist mindset that regarded people of color as a lower species and not slavery's acceptance in the populace of the more developed countries.
|
|
|
The dumbest part about the Greene stuff is the GOP pretending they don't know what QAnon is or how to pronounce. They had a goddamn vote on a resolution condemning it four months ago and managed to pronounce it just fine. But they understand the truth has pure negative value to their constituents.
The woman's brain is conspiracy mush, and they've known that for months if not years, but they don't care. They've fully embraced a total disengage from reality.
|
On February 04 2021 16:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The dumbest part about the Greene stuff is the GOP pretending they don't know what QAnon is or how to pronounce. They had a goddamn vote on a resolution condemning it four months ago and managed to pronounce it just fine. But they understand the truth has pure negative value to their constituents.
The woman's brain is conspiracy mush, and they've known that for months if not years, but they don't care. They've fully embraced a total disengage from reality.
At least Cheney also survived. They are trying to ride both horses for the time being, the party is split right through the middle, and they can't afford to take a stand.
After betting on Trump and losing everything, I hope doubling down on Trump makes them lose even more, and a divided party is a weak party.
|
On February 04 2021 11:27 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 01:31 Nevuk wrote:American slavery was pretty uniquely awful in history, iirc, for a whole host of reasons (most other competitors for how awful it was involved european colonizers and a native population). Most places with slavery before it didn't have it include the "passes on to children" part, and slavery was all over the place as to how good or bad it could be (varying from something like the current working middle class to something like prison conditions). America also still practices slavery. It's in the 13th amendment as an acceptable punishment for crimes and a small handful of states use involuntary unpaid labor in their prisons. Last time I brought this up in the thread people said "but that isn't SLAVERY", no, that's exactly slavery. It just isn't as awful as the chattel slavery practiced pre Civil War. (It's also somewhat pointless : it doesn't really save much money and the labor can obviously only be used on manual, very unskilled labor). Most other states pay way below the minimum wage for prisoners which isn't much better (on the lines of .50 an hour and then some even charge the prisoners for items like tooth brushes). On February 04 2021 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I am glad McConnell is making a fuss about budget reconciliation, literally the exact same strategy he used. Republican arguments have never been good faith, but everything during Trump’s blemish on American history made it so much more clear. Biden and the democrats don’t have nearly the pressure to “reach across the aisle” as they did during Obama’s presidency. If they push this package through, I’ll have faith in democrats again. Limited and conditional faith, but at the core, democrats need to be willing to act like they won and use their power. Trump showed Americans his vision. People want to see and feel vision and leadership. If Biden and Democrats do the same thing, I think they can win again in 2022 and 2024 Biden being white is a big advantage he has over Obama here, in that no one will blindly back McConnell purely out of unconscious racism. (McConnell always complained that Obama lectured him). @Slavery unique to the USA: Ancient Rome had for roughly half of it's history more slaves than citizens and for a large period they didn't have any noticeable rights and then it gradually improved. And the "passes on to children" part was definitely part of it. Slavery was a large part of the economy of most militaristic antique nations. But I agree that slavery was pretty terrible in the USA compared to most other similarly developed nations at the time. @Slavery in Europe in the 16th+ century: Slave trade was practiced by European nations, but most post-antique western European societies didn't have significant amounts of slaves on their home turf. It was mainly a thing within the colonial nations where the European nations did all kinds of horrible things. There were some exceptions like the aforementioned zoo where people with other skin colors were enslaved and treated as a curiosity, but unlike the USA very few European societies actually had an economy that was built on slavery. So the USA forbidding slavery wasn't exactly progressive when in most of Europe slavery hadn't played a significant role for roughly 800 years by then and the only reason it was having a bit of a resurgence was the fact that the USA was so liberal about it in the first place that it created a market. Also the fundamental issue with slavery at the time was the supremacist racist imperialist mindset that regarded people of color as a lower species and not slavery's acceptance in the populace of the more developed countries.
Sorry for bringing this again, i know this is US thread but i feel that westerners love to overemphasize their uniqueness and importance too much. I brought up before the fact that Slavery was practiced elshwere but some brushed it as marignal. It was not marginal by any means. By all counts it was much higher in volume than transatlantic slave trade, which acording to this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#16th,_17th_and_18th_centuries involved 12-13mln people being enslaved.
Consider Ottoman Empire alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
Slave Imports to Istambul (one city) 1453 to 1700 from Black Sea Area (one region) --> 2,5mln slaves
100 000 people standing slave army
1 000 000 slaves kidnapped from Commonwealth in years 1500 to 1644
400 000 slaves in Crimea alone (which wasnt really a populus region back then)
10 000 - 12 000 slaves arriving from East Africa yearly by 1838
Slaves sold for explicit sexual purposes
Selling slaves as late as year 1908
I would say that Ottomans alone beat all westerners combined when it comes to slavery. And all their neighbours (numerous Khanates, Persians, Berbers etc. also practiced slavery).
According to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
1,25 mln people were victims of Barbary slave raids.
|
On February 04 2021 07:30 FlaShFTW wrote:
I think one argument to consider about minimum wage is: if everything gets more expensive, then theoretically nothing changes in society and all we did was cause inflation, which means those people at the top are brought down closer because they're still buying pretty much the same thing as everyone else. So minimum wage people may not see a real difference, but the middle-upper middle class will see the largest impact.
The real thing we would need to watch is if those with disposable incomes would still buy the same products that are now made more expensive due to a higher minimum wage. If yes, then jobs SHOULDNT really go away as much as naysayers think. If not, then we would probably see layoffs to compensate for less revenue from people not buying as much.
It also gives those with minimum wage more options with their money. Say their groceries and other needs might proportionally increase with the rise of minimum wage, but if they can save enough, they'll have more options of what they can buy in other goods/services if those prices don't change. Hypothetically, if they now make 15 dollars/hour up from let's say 8-10 dollar/hour, normally they might only be able to afford a normal mediocre toothbrush. If toothbrush prices stay the same, then with the extra income they might be able to afford better electric toothbrushes. Now, should they be spending their extra money on electric toothbrushes? Probably not, but that's just an example of additional opportunities and goods that might open themselves up to a higher minimum wage earner.
Further, if a company makes their goods outside the US anyways, then prices of the goods shouldn't actually go up by much, if anything. Of course, companies might also recognize that even if the costs of their goods stay the same, people making more money as a result of minimum wage who buy their products might now raise the price to compensate, generating more profit per good sold.
Maybe I'm just wrong about everything though, i'm more or less just thinking to myself about what arguments have been made in favor of and against minimum wage. Feel free to correct my logic or counter some of these points.
As an aside here, i think an electric toothbrush is one of the best investments you can make. For about 50 bucks, you improve your dental hygiene by an incredible amount, which both leads to better quality of life due to less shit happening to your teeth, and also save a lot of money due to the same reason. Sure, if the choice is between food and an electric toothbrush, food wins. But i can not think of a lot of 50 dollar investments which improve your life as much as an electric toothbrush does.
Long-term study of electric toothbrushes
|
On February 04 2021 19:06 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 11:27 Archeon wrote:On February 04 2021 01:31 Nevuk wrote:American slavery was pretty uniquely awful in history, iirc, for a whole host of reasons (most other competitors for how awful it was involved european colonizers and a native population). Most places with slavery before it didn't have it include the "passes on to children" part, and slavery was all over the place as to how good or bad it could be (varying from something like the current working middle class to something like prison conditions). America also still practices slavery. It's in the 13th amendment as an acceptable punishment for crimes and a small handful of states use involuntary unpaid labor in their prisons. Last time I brought this up in the thread people said "but that isn't SLAVERY", no, that's exactly slavery. It just isn't as awful as the chattel slavery practiced pre Civil War. (It's also somewhat pointless : it doesn't really save much money and the labor can obviously only be used on manual, very unskilled labor). Most other states pay way below the minimum wage for prisoners which isn't much better (on the lines of .50 an hour and then some even charge the prisoners for items like tooth brushes). On February 04 2021 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I am glad McConnell is making a fuss about budget reconciliation, literally the exact same strategy he used. Republican arguments have never been good faith, but everything during Trump’s blemish on American history made it so much more clear. Biden and the democrats don’t have nearly the pressure to “reach across the aisle” as they did during Obama’s presidency. If they push this package through, I’ll have faith in democrats again. Limited and conditional faith, but at the core, democrats need to be willing to act like they won and use their power. Trump showed Americans his vision. People want to see and feel vision and leadership. If Biden and Democrats do the same thing, I think they can win again in 2022 and 2024 Biden being white is a big advantage he has over Obama here, in that no one will blindly back McConnell purely out of unconscious racism. (McConnell always complained that Obama lectured him). @Slavery unique to the USA: Ancient Rome had for roughly half of it's history more slaves than citizens and for a large period they didn't have any noticeable rights and then it gradually improved. And the "passes on to children" part was definitely part of it. Slavery was a large part of the economy of most militaristic antique nations. But I agree that slavery was pretty terrible in the USA compared to most other similarly developed nations at the time. @Slavery in Europe in the 16th+ century: Slave trade was practiced by European nations, but most post-antique western European societies didn't have significant amounts of slaves on their home turf. It was mainly a thing within the colonial nations where the European nations did all kinds of horrible things. There were some exceptions like the aforementioned zoo where people with other skin colors were enslaved and treated as a curiosity, but unlike the USA very few European societies actually had an economy that was built on slavery. So the USA forbidding slavery wasn't exactly progressive when in most of Europe slavery hadn't played a significant role for roughly 800 years by then and the only reason it was having a bit of a resurgence was the fact that the USA was so liberal about it in the first place that it created a market. Also the fundamental issue with slavery at the time was the supremacist racist imperialist mindset that regarded people of color as a lower species and not slavery's acceptance in the populace of the more developed countries. Sorry for bringing this again, i know this is US thread but i feel that westerners love to overemphasize their uniqueness and importance too much. I brought up before the fact that Slavery was practiced elshwere but some brushed it as marignal. It was not marginal by any means. By all counts it was much higher in volume than transatlantic slave trade, which acording to this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#16th,_17th_and_18th_centuries involved 12-13mln people being enslaved. Consider Ottoman Empire alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_EmpireSlave Imports to Istambul (one city) 1453 to 1700 from Black Sea Area (one region) --> 2,5mln slaves 100 000 people standing slave army 1 000 000 slaves kidnapped from Commonwealth in years 1500 to 1644 400 000 slaves in Crimea alone (which wasnt really a populus region back then) 10 000 - 12 000 slaves arriving from East Africa yearly by 1838 Slaves sold for explicit sexual purposes Selling slaves as late as year 1908 I would say that Ottomans alone beat all westerners combined when it comes to slavery. And all their neighbours (numerous Khanates, Persians, Berbers etc. also practiced slavery). According to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade1,25 mln people were victims of Barbary slave raids.
I fully agree, I had in the back of my mind that in the Ottoman Empire and the middle east had a large slave market. My point was that in most of Europe slavery wasn't commonplace anymore by the time the civil war happened especially when you compare the USA with the nations that were culturally similar (the Ottomans, while technically having conquered parts of Europe and being still a major powers at the time weren't exactly a typical European nation), so this "huge step" of forbidding slavery wasn't really a huge step in more progressed nations and was mainly the USA catching up to most of Europe.
And the "historically unique" was something that irked me as well, but I was about to go to bed and didn't have the numbers for the Ottos in my head, so Rome was the obvious comparison for why it wasn't unique at all.
I also feel that discussing the relevance of the Atlantic slave trade and the US' abolition of slavery belongs in the US thread, although the politics part perhaps more refers to more modern politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
