minimum wage should be almost 12 dollars

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 37
Topic's author
#1
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1

in 1974 the minimum wage was 2 bucks. if it kept up with inflation, it would be almost twelve dollars today. if you want to see with your own eyes what i say is true about inflation, check out this link and use a compound interest calculator to determine today's value. 

as to the old argument about whether we should have a minimum wage. it's a fact that we live in a demand economy. the economy is mostly stimulated by increased demand. it's mostly effective with the middle class spending, because they spend on such a wide range of products and services. it's reasonable to think if the wage is not below poverty that it would stimulate the economy. 

my theory is that the minimum wage is like the laffer curve. the laffer curve says government revenue increases with increasing taxes up to a point, then decreases with too much taxes. minimum wage is probably similar. the economy improves with increasing wages but at a certain point too much increase is bad. 

i can't say 1974 was the magic number year. but i can say if we got rid of the minimum wage, it would hurt the economy almost surely. and, 1974 was the beginning of some of the most economically vital times in history. if it's good for our past, it's good for our future. 

#2
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,565
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
And what is the average salary at present?
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@linate
What should the minimum wage be for charity workers? Do you want to send all priests and all church workers to prison?
#4
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
The minimum wage should be $0.00.  If a poor person doesn't like their job due to lack of salary, the government could provide them with a better job.
#5
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
We should put all of the rich people in televised death-matches, then redistribute the land and means of production.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Plot twist: You are rich.
#7
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Hard to be rich with negative net worth lol.
#8
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Putting the top 1% to death for being rich is unconstitutional.  You shouldn't use the internet to state claims that you wouldn't be willing to say in real life.  This means putting to death many Americans since worldwide, many are in the top 1%.  Because of capitalism, in the US, 90% of the US population is above the global average.  The same can not be said of China.
#9
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
Where will all of these jobs come from?

#10
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Alec
Lol the Constitution is an old piece of paper buddy. If following its dictates leads to wide-scale misery, there is no physical law to stop the heads from rolling. I could care less about percentage points, and an economic system which revolves around 'jobs' is precisely what needs to be eliminated. When the means of production are widely distributed, then there will be no proletariat class, 'jobs' will become a thing of the past, and a bunch of useless mediocrities will have to learn how to gas weld.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
It's all relative in the world of oppression olympics.
#12
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
I'm glad you asked.  Some ideas for the better job that the US government could provide the would be minimum wage workers are:

Job 1: Being a nation expander.  The people the US government could hire for this job would sneak into a place the US would want to annex in numbers so numerous that they make up a majority of the population of the land the US wants to annex.

Lets say the US decided to annex Canada.  Canada's population count is 37 million.  If the US sends 40 million nation expanders (former near minimum wage workers) (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ocasio-cortez-is-wrong-most-workers-still-earn-living-wage-despite-middle-class-erosion-2019-01-25) to Canada for the purpose of expanding the country, and if all the nation expanders voted for US annexation once in Canada, then them plus the 20% of Canadians who already want to be annexed by the US would mean that 60% of Canadians would vote for US annexation; basically what Russia did to Crimea without the genocide.

I'm kindof a neo colonialist who wants to expand America's borders.  To get the low wage workers willing to do this, they get paid $2 an hour (keep in mind they would be getting paid for 24 hours).  $48 a day($6 per hour if their pay was condensed to only 8 hours per day) doesn't seem like a lot, but if they get a job in Canada, they would be getting paid at least $11 an hour(https://www.retailcouncil.org/resources/quick-facts/minimum-wage-by-province/), bringing the pay of the lowest paid worker in Canada to $17 an hour for the time being.  In exchange, the US gets Canada, which would be fine since most of the "Canadians" would be fine with it.

The steps to get Canada to be in the US (assuming this plan gets put into action January 1 2020) are:

-Any worker that gets paid $15 or less per hour agrees to sign up gets $2 an hour for 24 hours a day for one year.  The nation expanders would protest for US annexation within one year of the above date.

-Canada inevitably does a poll on if they are okay with the US annexing their land.  About 60% of the population of Canada would vote yes if all the nation expanders cooperate.

-Once this happens, the US annexes Canada and the nation expanders continue to receive nation expanding benefit for 5 years.  After these 5 years, the Canadians would get used to being in the US and probably would want statehood instead of independence, just as most people in Texas who previously were against US annexation got over it and almost no one in Texas advocates for independence now. If Canada doesn't become part of the US by Jan 1 2021, the nation expanders are stuck in Canada and their nation expanding salary ceases to pay salaries.  

This would cost the US government about $105 billion, and the US would get the entirety of Canada's GDP in return; about 20x what we invest in the place with nation expanders.

Job 2: Installing solar power in the American desert.  It would create more jobs then the 50000 coal jobs lost and the coal jobs can join the workers in solar panel installing in the South West.  The US can then sell the energy to other countries and the money from that can help pay off our debt.  Education on how to install panels can be provided; it would still be profitable for the US.
#13
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Your communist ideology doesn't work in real life.  It failed in Russia.  It failed in China.  It failed in Cuba.  Left wing economic ideologies failed in most of Latin America and Africa.  

Capitalism has partly made the USA the country with the highest GDP in the world.

Capitalism is an unequal blessing.  Socialism is an equally shared misery.
#14
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
ಠ_ಠ

I mean Job 1 is clearly infeasible for multiple reasons. Canada does not have open borders with the US. Non-Canadian citizens may not vote in Canadian elections. Both applying for the necessary visas, and then citizenship are both long processes spanning multiple years.

That said, I do not think there are any good reasons for reducing the minimum wage to 0



#15
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
If they take longer then 1 year, that's fine, the cutoff date would be 1 year after when the "Canadians" are complete with the citizenship process.  They would be give government deadlines that they would sign up for that would help them infiltrate Canada and once they become citizens, they have 1 year to vote for US annexation and to appoint a prime minister who would support US annexation as well.  This then makes Canada part of the US.

You didn't mention my alternative job.
#16
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
To be more accurate, it would take several lifetimes right? Canada currently accepts around 200k immigrants a year. Only a portion of those are American. To exceed those numbers would bring into question why so many Americans are leaving America. Of course this assumes that each of those "immigrants" are able to keep their mouth shut. In reality, in our age of social media, such a scheme would be outted instantly. 

So the question is, why would the Canadian government allow for such a very obvious invasion?

As for your second job, I think the creation of more jobs in solar energy is a welcome future. I don't have many problems with it bar the obvious that it's not a unique or complete solution to your scenario. It may not even be a solution. Because solar energy is controlled by private companies and not the government hence while the government has created more jobs (with subsidies and investment), the companies themselves aren't obligated to pay beyond minimum. It's not a unique solution because you could currently do this for current minimum wage jobs right? And it's not complete because it can never replace current low wage jobs in terms of flexibility, skill, convenience or availability

Apart from this, you haven't given one reason as to why the minimum wage should be 0. It's all very well and good to say: "Here's a solution to this problem". But you haven't explained what advantages there are in having this problem that you've created in the first place.


#17
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Alec
My ideology isn't communism, it's traditionalist Catholicism. You know, the philosophical and political system which built Europe up from an imperial backwater into the beating heart of the civilized world. All capitalism has done is plunder that civilization's corpse, burning centuries worth of accumulated social and material capital and transforming it into drag queens, dragon dildos, and WalMart.
#18
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla


My ideology isn't communism, it's traditionalist Catholicism. You know, the philosophical and political system which built Europe up from an imperial backwater into the beating heart of the civilized world.
Where in the bible does it say to kill the rich as what you advocated for below:

We should put all of the rich people in televised death-matches
Next point:
You know, the philosophical and political system which built Europe up from an imperial backwater into the beating heart of the civilized world.

How is Europe a Catholic theocracy?  Most Europeans are pro choice, most base their economic policies on what they think will be best for the country rather then what they believe God wants them to do, and many Europeans are atheists/agnostics.  

All capitalism has done is plunder that civilization's corpse
This is a false accusation.  Capitalism has made society great, increased lifespan, created technological progress, and created the huge GDP per capita of the west.

transforming it into drag queens, dragon dildos, and WalMart.
For those who don't know, a "drag queen" is a transgender.  Capitalism did make these, I'll concede this point.

However, it created dildos, which I don't know too much about, so I don't know if this is like porn or like contraception.

Walmart is pretty legitimate.  I mean, it's a profitable business that helps the American economy, prevents tens of thousands of people from being unemployed, and provides products to hundreds of millions of Americans and maybe some more people internationally.




#19
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Alec
Where in the bible does it say to kill the rich as what you advocated for below:

We should put all of the rich people in televised death-matches
2 Samuel 12
1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David: and when he was come to him, he said to him: There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other poor.
2 The rich man had exceeding many sheep and oxen.
3 But the poor man had nothing at all but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up, and which had grown up in his house together with his children, eating of his bread, and drinking of his cup, and sleeping in his bosom: and it was unto him as a daughter.
4 And when a certain stranger was come to the rich man, he spared to take of his own sheep and oxen, to make a feast for that stranger, who was come to him, but took the poor man's ewe, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
5 And David's anger being exceedingly kindled against that man, he said to Nathan: As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this is a child of death.

Proverbs 13
8 The ransom of a man's life are his riches: but he that is poor beareth not reprehension.
9 The light of the just giveth joy: but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out.

Proverbs 28
19 He that tilleth his ground, shall be filled with bread: but he that followeth idleness shall be filled with poverty.
20 A faithful man shall be much praised: but he that maketh haste to be rich, shall not be innocent.
21 He that hath respect to a person in judgment, doth not well: such a man even for a morsel of bread forsaketh the truth.

Ecclesiastes 5
9 A covetous man shall not be satisfied with money: and he that loveth riches shall reap no fruit from them: so this also is vanity.
10 Where there are great riches, there are also many to eat them. And what doth it profit the owner, but that he seeth the riches with his eyes?
11 Sleep is sweet to a labouring man, whether he eat little or much: but the fulness of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.

Jeremiah 51
20 Thou dashest together for me the weapons of war, and with thee I will dash nations together, and with thee I will destroy kingdoms:
21 And with thee I will break in pieces the horse, and his rider, and with thee I will break in pieces the chariot, and him that getteth up into it:
22 And with thee I will break in pieces man and woman, and with thee I will break in pieces the old man and the child, and with thee I will break in pieces the young man and the virgin:
23 And with thee I will break in pieces the shepherd and his flock, and with thee I will break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen, and with thee I will break in pieces captains and rulers.
24 And I will render to Babylon, and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea all their evil, that they have done in Sion, before your eyes, saith the Lord.
25 Behold I come against thee, thou destroying mountain, saith the Lord, which corruptest the whole earth: and I will stretch out my hand upon thee, and will roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.
26 And they shall not take of thee a stone for the corner, nor a stone for foundations, but thou shalt be destroyed for ever, saith the Lord.
27 Set ye up a standard in the land: sound with the trumpet among the nations: prepare the nations against her: call together against her the kings of Ararat, Menni, and Ascenez: number Taphsar against her, bring the horse as the stinging locust.
28 Prepare the nations against her, the kings of Media, their captains, and all their rulers, and all the land of their dominion.
29 And the land shall be in a commotion, and shall be troubled: for the design of the Lord against Babylon shall awake, to make the land of Babylon desert and uninhabitable.
30 The valiant men of Babylon have forborne to fight, they have dwelt in holds: their strength hath failed, and they are become as women: her dwelling places are burnt, her bars are broken.

Psalm 108
9 May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be carried about vagabonds, and beg; and let them be cast out of their dwellings.
11 May the usurer search all his substance: and let strangers plunder his labours.
12 May there be none to help him: nor none to pity his fatherless offspring.
13 May his posterity be cut off; in one generation may his name be blotted out.
14 May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered in the sight of the Lord: and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 May they be before the Lord continually, and let the memory of them perish from the earth:
16 because he remembered not to shew mercy,
17 But persecuted the poor man and the beggar; and the broken in heart, to put him to death.

Justice for the oppression of the poor is a very common theme in the Bible. God often used the people as his tools, to destroy Babylon, for example. Nathan strikingly convinces David to condemn himself to death through the story of the poor man's lamb, and David is punished dearly by God for it. Rich people are only praised when they put God above riches, and Christ famously said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Capitalist America and Europe are the new Babylons, and God will use the people as his tools to overthrown and destroy them, as he did Tyre, Babylon, and Rome. The wicked people at the head of that serpent are the richest ones in the world, and they will not escape justice. Our entire economic system is based on usury, which has slowly destroyed even the concept of a Sabbath for the working poor. My proposal was a bit hyperbolic, but if they don't repent and change their ways then the rich will be destroyed completely, and the people will rejoice that God's justice is finally being delivered.

#20
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Alec

Next point:

You know, the philosophical and political system which built Europe up from an imperial backwater into the beating heart of the civilized world.

How is Europe a Catholic theocracy?  Most Europeans are pro choice, most base their economic policies on what they think will be best for the country rather then what they believe God wants them to do, and many Europeans are atheists/agnostics.  
Europe has existed for thousands of years. For most of that history (the part where it transitioned from a backwater to a cultural and material powerhouse) the Church held a huge amount of power over the economic and cultural life of the continent.


All capitalism has done is plunder that civilization's corpse
This is a false accusation.  Capitalism has made society great, increased lifespan, created technological progress, and created the huge GDP per capita of the west.
Lol, yep, that's why there was no technological advancement before capitalism arrived on the scene, and there wouldn't have been any without it. It's not like all of the inventions which precipitated the industrial revolution where discovered before capitalism as a system came into being... oh wait...

transforming it into drag queens, dragon dildos, and WalMart.
For those who don't know, a "drag queen" is a transgender.  Capitalism did make these, I'll concede this point.

However, it created dildos, which I don't know too much about, so I don't know if this is like porn or like contraception.

Walmart is pretty legitimate.  I mean, it's a profitable business that helps the American economy, prevents tens of thousands of people from being unemployed, and provides products to hundreds of millions of Americans and maybe some more people internationally.


Slavery was pretty legitimate. I mean, it was a profitable industry which helped the American economy, gave thousands of poor Africans a place to sleep and food, provided lots of nice cotton doublets for thousands of Americans and maybe some more people internationally.

#21
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
do we believe that state and federal taxes are being managed the best they can be?  What if we cut waste and wasteful programs such that people can keep more of their own money?  Wouldn't having more of what you earn be far better than raising minimum wages, which will increase costs and automate productions like it has in states that have already done it?  Why is the answer to never hold government accountable when it comes to wasting our tax dollars?
#22
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
To exceed those numbers would bring into question why so many Americans are leaving America.
Canada may think it is because of President Trump and if asked upon this, the "Canadians" could answer, "We are leaving because of Donald Trump.  We're poor.  We're trying to find a better job in Canada since Trump made the minimum wage $0.00/hour.".  They then go through the legal process to become Canadian citizens, it would take some time, but Canada initially would be pleased with all this anglophone immigration.  Basically anyone who meets the requirements for Canadian citizenship would get citizenship to Canada (https://www.immigration.ca/new-requirements-for-canadian-citizenship).  It is a long process, but the US government could provide a nation expander salary for the time being.  

Of course this assumes that each of those "immigrants" are able to keep their mouth shut.
They sign a contract stating that they won't reveal their true intentions until every single nation expander is in Canada and every single nation expander gets citizenship to Canada.  Once they are in, lets say for the sake of argument that all the nation expanders tell vouch for US annexation.  I don't think Canada will deport half of their current population back to the US.

why would the Canadian government allow for such a very obvious invasion?
If the Canadian government doesn't detect millions of, "refugees" fleeing the US due to a lack of minimum wage, then they would unexpectedly lose their sovereignty.  Canada might predict it, but by the time they do, it might be too late.  Due to Canada's liberal nature, the Canadian government might not want to prohibit immigration out of the fear that it is racist.

Also, lets say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to invade Canada in this manner.  The US can still use nation expanders to go into US territories to turn them into states.  We can do this to PR, the Northern Mariana islands, and American Samoa, generating 3 new states for America.  These areas have open borders with the US.

Ont my 2nd proposed alternative job:

Because solar energy is controlled by private companies and not the government 
Currently, private companies aren't seizing the opportunity.  If they don't seize the opportunity, then the government would have to.  Once the solar/wind fields are developed, the energy generated is sold nationally and internationally and this helps reduce taxes for everyone in the US.
#23
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
Canada may think it is because of President Trump and if asked upon this, the "Canadians" could answer, "We are leaving because of Donald Trump.  We're poor.  We're trying to find a better job in Canada since Trump made the minimum wage $0.00/hour.".  They then go through the legal process to become Canadian citizens, it would take some time, but Canada initially would be pleased with all this anglophone immigration.  Basically anyone who meets the requirements for Canadian citizenship would get citizenship to Canada (https://www.immigration.ca/new-requirements-for-canadian-citizenship).  It is a long process, but the US government could provide a nation expander salary for the time being.  
You've skipped a few steps. Getting Canadian citizenship is rather easy when you already have residency. However first you have to meet the requirements for Canadian residency. You've proposed to send over the unskilled and the uneducated. How do these people gain residency?

They sign a contract stating that they won't reveal their true intentions until every single nation expander is in Canada and every single nation expander gets citizenship to Canada.  Once they are in, lets say for the sake of argument that all the nation expanders tell vouch for US annexation.  I don't think Canada will deport half of their current population back to the US.
You can't swear 40 million people to secrecy. It's as simple as that. Especially not over the time period that this operation would take, which is over several lifetimes

If the Canadian government doesn't detect millions of, "refugees" fleeing the US due to a lack of minimum wage, then they would unexpectedly lose their sovereignty.  Canada might predict it, but by the time they do, it might be too late.  Due to Canada's liberal nature, the Canadian government might not want to prohibit immigration out of the fear that it is racist.
Countries aren't inherently liberal or conservative. It entirely depends on the current governing party. The governing party is decided by the people. And you've apparently decided to become the Mexico to their US.

Also, lets say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to invade Canada in this manner.  The US can still use nation expanders to go into US territories to turn them into states.  We can do this to PR, the Northern Mariana islands, and American Samoa, generating 3 new states for America.  These areas have open borders with the US.
???

What advantages would this give the US? Why would you bother doing this?

Currently, private companies aren't seizing the opportunity.  If they don't seize the opportunity, then the government would have to.  Once the solar/wind fields are developed, the energy generated is sold nationally and internationally and this helps reduce taxes for everyone in the US.
Why do you think private companies aren't currently "seizing the opportunity". What things would the government do better that the private companies do not? Also, what incentivizes the government to pay more than minimum wage?

Bringing this around again, what reasons are there to reduce the minimum wage to 0?


#24
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Justice for the oppression of the poor is a very common theme in the Bible.
Ultimate  "justice", ergo the final solution, the Apocalypse for all and for all, bad night.

...."Essentially it's a book about the wrath of God being poured out upon the world.People not repenting except for the small group of faithful followers of God,and this awful wicked beast power ruling the whole world, and defying God,shaking his fist at God.

....And finally Jesus coming, not as a Prince of Peace atall, not as a lamb, but at the end of the book, as a rider on a horse, awarrior with a sword, to smite the nations. In one of the quotes that comes tomy mind it says, "He will rule the nations with a rod of iron, as a potterstrikes a pot with iron and it just completely shatters."

...So I think thatwould be the dominant impression someone would get, maybe a book you'd wantto close and put away and not even think about. The book that might give younightmares at night, in terms of all of these bizarre creatures". ...


#25
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@linate
Golden Rule Variations

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them do onto you---- has
a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there
were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with
compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
humanity or its distinct tribes. "

Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgiveness
by humans takes time.

Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and tooth for a tooth. [im not sure if
any animals other than humans practice this concept]

Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have
them share with you."

Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all
humans, does not neccessitate chaos."


Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’s Be Here Now

#26
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
You've proposed to send over the unskilled and the uneducated. How do these people gain residency?
I think Canada would accept them like they would any other immigrant.  The US doesn't discriminate on wealth; they discriminate on the basis of if you would be a burden to American society.  As long as it appears that they aren't a burden to Canadian society, Canada would probably accept them, just like America would accept legal immigrants from wherever.

You can't swear 40 million people to secrecy. It's as simple as that.
What incentive would they have to breach their contract and lose their nation expander salary?  Only a fringe of people who would be interested would violate this aspect of the contract.  They may say on social media, "Moving to Canada, escaping the US and it's lack of minimum wage" but Canada probably would accept this as anti-Trump immigrants and not as a threat to their sovereignty.  Since China is getting very powerful, the US should start annexing land to stay on top.

And you've apparently decided to become the Mexico to their US.
What does this mean?

What advantages would this give the US? Why would you bother doing this?
To increase the GDP of the US.  Our rival, China has 2/3 the GDP of the US, but their GDP is growing at about triple the rate the US is.  If the US doesn't increase it's own GDP at the same rate, then China would overtake us and would influence the world stage more then the US.  I don't want a communist, anti free speech country getting that power.

Why do you think private companies aren't currently "seizing the opportunity".
I think it's due to lack of interest.  There are some people like Ellen Musk that interested in it, but Ellen Musk alone doesn't have the power to create alternative energy for the entire US.  If the government stepped in, it would create so many jobs for people and the energy sales from the alternative energy once completed would help pay for the project and once that is completed, it would reduce taxes for American society to some level while being able to maintain current government services.

Bringing this around again, what reasons are there to reduce the minimum wage to 0?
The minimum wage is expensive for businesses and many businesses have to lay off workers in order to keep profits up.  If the minimum wage was $0 an hour, then businesses could pay their workers anything mutually agreed.

You may say something like, "These businesses would cease to operate if all their workers left for government jobs".  However, the businesses could automate and would be given low interest loans (slightly above inflation) to automate their businesses.  Then, they can pay their workers nothing (since they are all machines) and businesses become way more common and the economy skyrockets.
#27
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
I think Canada would accept them like they would any other immigrant.  The US doesn't discriminate on wealth; they discriminate on the basis of if you would be a burden to American society.  As long as it appears that they aren't a burden to Canadian society, Canada would probably accept them, just like America would accept legal immigrants from wherever.
Neither Canada nor the US accepts immigrants willy-nilly. Most countries don't, outside of specific agreements such as the EU. The closest example is the US green card lottery. But obviously that has strict controls and quotas. The most general option available to people outside of Canada is a sort of points system based on marriage, age, education, language ability, work experience and job offer. The people you've proposed to send over in most cases fail in the marriage, education, work experience, job offer and quite possibly the language ability sections (as it requires a specific certification)

What incentive would they have to breach their contract and lose their nation expander salary?  Only a fringe of people who would be interested would violate this aspect of the contract.  They may say on social media, "Moving to Canada, escaping the US and it's lack of minimum wage" but Canada probably would accept this as anti-Trump immigrants and not as a threat to their sovereignty.  Since China is getting very powerful, the US should start annexing land to stay on top.
There is no incentive, but you're making the assumption that the loss of secrecy would be intentional. Here's a link discussing this. 

tl;dr, For a secret to be kept for 5 years, the maximum number of secretkeepers is 2521. You're talking about 40 million people in a plot that spans several lifetimes

What does this mean?
I imagine that the people who have a negative view on Mexican immigrants, illegal or others only do so because 1. They have been fed that narrative by the media and 2. They have been impacted by it themselves. If you send over a butt-ton of immigrants to Canada, it wouldn't really be any different. Canadians would develop negative views of American immigrants as they are personally impacted by the immigrant rush and an anti-immigrant view sets in.

To increase the GDP of the US.  Our rival, China has 2/3 the GDP of the US, but their GDP is growing at about triple the rate the US is.  If the US doesn't increase it's own GDP at the same rate, then China would overtake us and would influence the world stage more then the US.  I don't want a communist, anti free speech country getting that power.
US territories are still a part of the US. In most cases the GDP of US territories are included or can be included within the total US GDP

I think it's due to lack of interest.  There are some people like Ellen Musk that interested in it, but Ellen Musk alone doesn't have the power to create alternative energy for the entire US.  If the government stepped in, it would create so many jobs for people and the energy sales from the alternative energy once completed would help pay for the project and once that is completed, it would reduce taxes for American society to some level while being able to maintain current government services.

The minimum wage is expensive for businesses and many businesses have to lay off workers in order to keep profits up.  If the minimum wage was $0 an hour, then businesses could pay their workers anything mutually agreed.
Honestly it just sounds like the businesses you've described have just employed too many redundant people than the minimum wage being too high for them. Are there any examples in which people have been laid off specifically due to the minimum wage being too high?

To be clear, the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage. That is, the minimum amount you need to provide for basic necessities. The minimum wage is also an income that falls below the poverty line. By dropping the minimum wage to 0 and negotiating a wage up to the old minimum wage, you'll only be able to negotiate a wage that is less than or equal to it.

But that's where the government jobs come in right? Wrong. Not everyone has the means or ability to take up the jobs you've suggested. Which means their only option is to work for whatever the business decides to give them and nothing.

Honestly, I expect the US to be better than the exploited factory worker in Thailand making handbags for pennies

You may say something like, "These businesses would cease to operate if all their workers left for government jobs".  However, the businesses could automate and would be given low interest loans (slightly above inflation) to automate their businesses.  Then, they can pay their workers nothing (since they are all machines) and businesses become way more common and the economy skyrockets.
I actually don't think all workers would leave or anything dramatic like that. Ultimately at the end of the day, a business needs workers. So there has to be a point where the pay is high enough that desperate enough people will stay. The issue is that I fully expect businesses to hover at that line of desperation if they are allowed to do so. And that line is far below than what is needed to survive.

37 days later

#28
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Sorry I haven't been able to get back.  Life got in the way.

172 days later

#29
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@linate
@dustryder
I disagree with this statement made by dustryder:

To be clear, the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage. That is, the minimum amount you need to provide for basic necessities.
I believe this youtuber does a great job debunking this silly concept of a "US living wage". https://youtu.be/M-c9OW6zUtg?t=285

My favorite part of the video is when he says, and I quote:

What is a living wage? How much is a living wage pay per hour? I never been paid a living wage? I don't make a living wage now, 'cause I don't know what that is really, like what is that really? I make enough money to be able to pay for my bills that I have, but a living wage is a term that makes no sense. It has no basis in reality, because the money that you need to be able to live and sustain yourself; it all depends on what you consider "living and sustaining yourself" and it also depends upon your personal situation. It also depends on your geographic location. Like prime example: I could live in a house in the ghetto and I could live by myself. I have no debt. I have no bills other than just my household expenditures, alright, and I don't require much to survive. I may work from home. I don't need a vehicle, so I don't have a vehicle. I can ride the bus or catch the Uber if I need transportation, and I don't really require much food to sustain myself. I might eat 1 meal a day.
So my living expenses would be drastically different than somebody that lives right next door in the same kinda house or even an apartment complex. We could live in the exact similar apartment complex, pay rent to the exact same people, but yet my living expenses would be less than theirs if they have a bunch of kids in the house. They got a person, an adult, that does not work. Let's say you got a husband and a wife. The husband is the one that makes the bread (money) he is the one that brings the bread home. The wife does not work, and they got 3 or 4 kids running around.
Better yet, even better example. You got a single mother with no husband, and she is the person bringing all the money home. She has 4 kids all under the age of 10, right, and she has crazy debt, you know, she got student loan debt, credit card debt, all kind of debt. So the money that she needs to live is different than the money I need to live even though we live right next door to each other, so we go out for the same job, how do I sit there and say I need a living wage, and she says she needs the same thing, and the money that we need is different to sustain ourselves, and then it also depends on what you think is enough money to sustain yourself, because I may just say that all I need is enough to be able to eat food and pay my household bills, but somebody else may say I need money to eat food, pay my household bills, pay for car, pay for kids private school, pay for kids clothes, pay for kids this pay for kids that, right.
The amount of money that we need to survive is different, even if you same the same kind of family situation going on. A single mother with 3 kids right next door to a mother that has the same situation going on at her house. She may think that the money that she needs to live is different than that of the other person. Does that make either one of them wrong? Not necessarily.

This is the problem with dustryder's claim that "the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage." The so-called "minimum amount you need to provide for basic necessities." varies from place to place and from family to family, and the people claiming that the entire United States needs to ensure that everybody gets a full living wage, including dustryder and linate (the original poster), often don't take that into account.

Like the youtuber Anthony Brian Logan said, if I choose to not have kids, to save my money, to eat only 1 or 2 meals a day, to ride a bike to work or walk there instead of taking a car, to avoid as much debt as possible, to avoid spending on unnecessary things that I don't need like decorations, and live in a cheap home, then my "living wage" will be much lower, and I could actually afford to live decently with my minimum wage, as opposed to someone next door who makes the poor decision to have kids at an early age (which will cost them more money), chooses to purchase fancy things that they don't need (which costs them more), chooses to own an expensive car (which costs them more), and makes poor life choices which results in debt (costing them more).

So yeah, dustryder's claim that "the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage." would be true ONLY for people who spend poorly and make poor choices, but not necessarily for someone like me who makes better choices and does not put himself through the trouble of having to blow away money on a child or something.

Here is a youtube video about various millennials who struggle to pay for living expenses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdKbNrANrJs

Notice how many of them have made the terrible decision to purchase useless decorations, costing them money, and one of them even purchases a pet cat, which has to be fed and nurtured, costing them more money, resulting in them needing a higher "US living wage" than someone like myself who knows how to make smarter life choices. https://i.imgur.com/7CK7Yx6.png
#30
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
This is the problem with dustryder's claim that "the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage." The so-called "minimum amount you need to provide for basic necessities." varies from place to place and from family to family, and the people claiming that the entire United States needs to ensure that everybody gets a full living wage, including dustryder and linate (the original poster), often don't take that into account.
Sure. That's why there are calculators for this purpose: http://livingwage.mit.edu/
As you can see, the minimum wages tend to be lower than the living wages accounting for location and family composition.

If you think they've made an error in their calculations, you're free to email them about it

Like the youtuber Anthony Brian Logan said, if I choose to not have kids, to save my money, to eat only 1 or 2 meals a day, to ride a bike to work or walk there instead of taking a car, to avoid as much debt as possible, to avoid spending on unnecessary things that I don't need like decorations, and live in a cheap home, then my "living wage" will be much lower, and I could actually afford to live decently with my minimum wage, as opposed to someone next door who makes the poor decision to have kids at an early age (which will cost them more money), chooses to purchase fancy things that they don't need (which costs them more), chooses to own an expensive car (which costs them more), and makes poor life choices which results in debt (costing them more).
This is a description of standard of living, not a living wage. The standard of living can change based upon your frugality or lack thereof, however a living wage does not. Obviously, someone can live in a cardboard box, eat one meal of ramen and live that lifestyle on minimum wage. However living in a box and starving yourself doesn't really approach what most would consider basic necessities