The Destruction of Small Business

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
The destruction of small business's are an example of a liberal agenda that promotes laziness.

The minimum of wage of $15 an hour will kill off small business without a doubt. States with higher taxes that have to pay their employees more will suffer more unless they are big businesses. People who are boycotting their jobs are forgetting that these people need workers in order to operate and that many small business are failing because there attempt to be lazy? But I have stated before that a surplus in welfare will lead to more lazier people and a refusal to go back to work? I have said from the start of my DART experience and it looks like I'm proven right. Small business are collapsing everyday due to these absurd regulations.

When the stimulus checks came in, the jobs decreased and people didn't want to go to work. People got paid for being lazy and doing nothing. You are just ultimately hurting yourself by refusing not to come to work and someone else coming to help you. You will not be re-hired if your spot is filled and that person will be making a good wage.

Laziness gets you no where in life. Stop using it as an agenda.

#2
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Vader
AAAAAAA-men. Freeloading is the first step of giving up one's freedom to be something; anything more than a blight. Participation in a free-market economy is best served by being in that market. And, don't stop at working for money. Make it go to work for you. Not speaking to you, Supa; I know you know. "You" is for freeloaders who think you and I owe them a living. Living is no right. Living to accomplish dreams is.
#3
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Vader
Um... have you considered that perhaps the economic collapse due to the pandemic that occurred? So.. you know - just a tad of false equivocation. Furthermore - um - you also are presenting the implicit argument that people earning minimum wage (current) is "okay" or at the very least, worth what it takes to upkeep our economy - and even if I do accept your argument that it will "destroy small business" - it's assuming that violating people's ability to not be in poverty is worth the economic sustainability.... and that's just not true. 

An ethical dilemma is precisely that - ethical - it doesn't particularly matter that this will occur-  all it means is that now we have a new problem that we need to counter. Simple.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,606
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Vader
I don't know, Canada has a minimum wage of $14.25/hr. and the OECD forecasts that Canada's economy will grow by 3.5% in 2021 and perform better than the United States.
Topic's author
#5
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes. The stimulus checks are supposed to be temporary relief to people losing their jobs so that when the pandemic is over they go back to normal work. The $1400 check has caused people to not go back to their regular jobs. Big corporation can fill that hole, but small business owners can't afford that, and it's harder to afford a $15 minimal wage because they have to pay increased amount of tax and now higher wages. It adds more to their budget and causes them to make less. 

My point is that welfare is making me people lazier, which results in a failing society, as I believe hard work is necessary to function as a society
Topic's author
#6
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@FLRW
Yes, because Canada's corporate taxes are 26.3% compared to America's 37%. And even with that in mind with COVID, 31% of SBO's have fallen while 44% of Canadian SBO's say they can't lose any more than they have (this number various depending on employees, the lower the employees, the lower the %). 
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,606
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Vader
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced the U.S. federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vader
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vader
Also, Canada is 11 ranks higher than the USA

#10
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Vader
Um.. .do you have some sort of study that confirms that assertion? I mean sure it could happen, but does it happen often enough to be a problem?
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I read the following from an article, "What will happen to small family businesses under socialism"http://www.deleonism.org/text/91051801.htm

"Socialism necessarily means abolishing the private ownership of all means of social production and distribution. However, this will not mean ruin and destitution for small business owners. On the contrary, they will become workers in a society in which all workers would be entitled to work, and to receive the full social value of what they produce. Thus, for most, if not all, of the former petty capitalists, socialism will mean greater affluence and a major increase in leisure time. And for everyone, socialist society means full economic security and the numerous advantages of life in a peaceful, harmonious and healthy social and physical environment."

With such a commentary, I wonder why every single effort of a country to embrace socialism - completely - I'm not talking about those, such as in western Europe who flirt with, but have not embraced it fully - have never succeeded beyond an average of 40 years in socialism, and it's longest lasting example, USSR, lasted 75 years. China? Yes, the government is communist, but the economy is a gov't subsidized quasi-free market, not socialism. They know how to use their economy, and bolster it by fluctuating their currency value - which is cheating. So, why doesn't the reality of socialism match this claim I've quoted?
#12
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Vader
I agree with that, the problem is that why are large corporations, that you trust as a libertarian, supporting and promoting this cause? Maybe the true engineers of the declining America were the corporations?
Topic's author
#13
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because that business worked hard to get where they are. McDonalds was a small restaurant back then
#14
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... have you considered that perhaps the economic collapse due to the pandemic that occurred? So.. you know - just a tad of false equivocation. Furthermore - um - you also are presenting the implicit argument that people earning minimum wage (current) is "okay" or at the very least, worth what it takes to upkeep our economy - and even if I do accept your argument that it will "destroy small business" - it's assuming that violating people's ability to not be in poverty is worth the economic sustainability.... and that's just not true. 

An ethical dilemma is precisely that - ethical - it doesn't particularly matter that this will occur-  all it means is that now we have a new problem that we need to counter. Simple.

The pandemic occurring isn't what caused the global economic catastrophe which followed.  What caused that harm were the futile and demonstrably ineffective non-pharmaceutical interventions styled as "safety measures," most governments imposed at some point in the first quarter of 2020.  True, much economic harm would have resulted anyway as supply chains were disrupted, consumer confidence was acutely undermined and global economic output contracted.  But the scale would have been miniscule, absent draconian lockdowns. 

As to the minimum wage, the goal behind raising the minimum wage is to keep up with inflation (directly) to provide a living wage (indirectly).  The indirect goal is one I'm sympathetic to.  Especially when most people in this country now have no hope of obtaining benefits-paying full time employment, cannot even afford Obamacare insurance and are left having to choose between food and rent on a month-to-month basis.  They have no savings, pensions or retirement.  Their lives are of quiet despair, until during the pandemic the political and media establishment chose to blame them for imagined racial, public health and other problems.  

It wasn't always like this.  Before Bill Clinton and the corporatist-whore Democrats that run the party now were in power, the Democrats were, in fact, a party for the working man.  Now, they're like 1980s Republicans infected with identity-politics leftism.  It's nauseating.  To make matters worse, they have consistently deregulated labor markets, destroyed working class protections even like the minimum wage by way of a reckless monetary policy, which has devalued the dollar to the point that even if there was a $15 minimum wage, it likely wouldn't cut it.  Consumer price indexes are horrifying.  The price of milk, eggs and even something as simple as bacon has risen to the point of near-absurdity.  That is really what all this COVID-spending got us.  

And the looming array of foreclosures is still on the horizon.  The harm to housing markets in the states that locked down far, far beyond the point it was beyond obvious they made absolutely no difference is something we haven't even fully experienced yet, and won't until probably the middle to the end of next year.  That's to say nothing of the harm that's going to continue to be felt by all the businesses in cities that are, in fact, the lifeblood of those cities, which were destroyed in riots/looting (following George Floyd, of course) that never reopened. 

Shit's fucked.  And it's a disaster of the government's own creation, fueled by the media.  









#15
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@coal
I'm still lookin' through the evidence on that one chief - I think that the evidence is extremely correlative instead of casual regarding the effectiveness of lock-downs - I definitely need to see some more evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of the lockdowns. Now - I am not saying that they were effective, I am merely saying that I need more evidence before I am convinced to the contrary. 

Furthermore, again, regardless of the economic fallbacks - the moral thing is the moral thing - regardless - if you wanna talk about the "riots" which were caused by the BLM protests - we can talk about the majority peaceful protests, or we can talk about the police escalation that caused more harm. That is - turned a peaceful protest into a riot - instead of de-escalating riots - ya know - which is their job. 

So if we wanna talk about what's caused the market crash, let's talk about the person who let it get to the point of lock-down - that is Donald J. Trump with Covid, ya know, in contrast to Obama with Ebola.

Remember the 11 cases of Ebola? Compared to the what...more than 30 million cases of Covid?
#16
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Here's a news article outlining what the relevant data say, from the Wall Street Journal.  But the bottom line is that "Full lockdowns, border closures, and high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with reduced number of critical cases or overall mortality," according to research published in The Lancet.  

So none of those efforts made a difference.  And there are about a dozen major analytics firms (and their clients) who have found similar results.  There are ways you can manipulate your methods to make it seem like lockdowns made a difference, and it requires some effort to understand how.  But there is no non-deceptive, non-dishonest way to claim that data anywhere on earth support the proposition that lockdowns were in any way associated with any public health outcome improvement.  The evidence simply does not exist. 

Keep in mind, I am not arguing that we should have "chosen the economy" over "lives," either.  Because that was never a choice.  And the policy issue is only a moral question, if it is in fact true that imposing lockdowns would have in fact saved lives.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, evidence supporting that that's the case.  

On riots, I do not blame police for them.  I know what I saw in my city, outside my office and in the city's financial and commercial districts.  It wasn't the police who were causing the problem.  

On Obama and Ebola, that is in fact the model that Trump should have followed.  Trump's handling of the pandemic was a disaster, not because he got the wrong answer so much as he lost control of the narrative and allowed his political fate to be defined by an outcome that was beyond his or anyone else's control.  He failed to take those steps needed to apprise the country of what was inevitably going to happen, dispel pseudoscience championed by his opponents as "safety measures necessary for public health" and he failed to excise the cancers of Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx from their leadership positions.  He should have hired Jay Battacharya and John Ionidis at Standord, directed them to form a commission and followed that commissions' recommendations.  Instead, he told people to consume household chemicals.  

One thing you should know about Obama's pandemic commission is that they rejected lockdowns outright.  This would have never happened with him in charge. 


#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Vader
that doesn't justify anything- just because mcdonalds rose to fame doesnt mean it can morally destroy our nation
#18
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Vader
The $15/hr is a negotiating tactic. It’s a starting point, the real goal is to get it to around $10-$12 an hour. This wouldn’t hurt businesses because the vast majority pay around that for their lowest wages. Raising the minimum wage to $11 an hour or so wouldn’t break the bank of businesses but it would provide some much needed relief for people who are particularly exploitable or made particularly bad employment deals. Very few people work for the federal minimum wage, the de facto minimum wage in most places is already around $10. 

I don’t think people really grasp how pathetically small $7.25 is. It’s hard for me to even imagine what kind of work you’d be willing to pay for that doesn’t return you more than a McDonald’s combo meal in marginal utility. I don’t think anyone should have to work for those kinds of wages in such a rich country. 
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
The hard truth is there are people that the Military rejects that cant physically or mentally produce a big mac meal worth of work output, otherwise the military would have taken them.

Minimum wage discriminates against those people because nobody is going to hire them unless the government somehow subsidizes their wage to make up for the difference.
#20
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
that doesn't justify anything- just because mcdonalds rose to fame doesnt mean it can morally destroy our nation

According to libertarians, it does.

I remember a funny meme about Jo Jorgensen. It said something like “don’t you hate when corporations pollute your drinking water? Well I have great news! Under my plan, when corporations pollute your water, you can smoke weed”
#21
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@thett3
I don’t think people really grasp how pathetically small $7.25 is. It’s hard for me to even imagine what kind of work you’d be willing to pay for that doesn’t return you more than a McDonald’s combo meal in marginal utility. I don’t think anyone should have to work for those kinds of wages in such a rich country. 
In high school, I worked at Pizza Hut starting at $7.25. After a year and a half when I left, I was still only making $8.65. The term “living wage” gets thrown around an awful lot, but honestly, do we expect businesses to be giving out living wages for flipping burgers?

Some jobs are just very low skilled and should be reserved for teenagers. I definitely think people should be able to make decent livings without a college degree, but I’d expect them to apply themselves a little more than that.

Also, restaurants only make a few percentage profit margins, so I’d expect a rather steep increase in prices if it was raised to $11/hr
Topic's author
#22
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@thett3
I agree, I think a $10-12 dollar minimum wage is reasonable enough. I would be fine with that deal

I think my issue with people staying home is that it enforces lazy habits. Sitting at home collecting checks never feels satisfying or good in anyway and you soon fall slum into laziness. Who knows, maybe they become too comfortable in the life they have and just collect checks. I was taught that hard work is good for you to become a better person.
#23
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Vader
I agree, I think a $10-12 dollar minimum wage is reasonable enough. I would be fine with that deal

I think my issue with people staying home is that it enforces lazy habits. Sitting at home collecting checks never feels satisfying or good in anyway and you soon fall slum into laziness. Who knows, maybe they become too comfortable in the life they have and just collect checks. I was taught that hard work is good for you to become a better person.
Yeah we don't disagree then...the federal unemployment supplement was necessary when the government forced people out of work through lockdowns and such, but now that things have returned to normal its completely absurd that people can make more sitting at home than actually working. It needs to end
#24
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
In high school, I worked at Pizza Hut starting at $7.25. After a year and a half when I left, I was still only making $8.65. The term “living wage” gets thrown around an awful lot, but honestly, do we expect businesses to be giving out living wages for flipping burgers?
yeah there is definitely a lot of truth to this. People don't want to admit that some labor really just isn't all that valuable. That said, I really truly don't think that raising the minimum wage to $10 or $11 would harm things that much. De-facto, this is the minimum wage for most people, by raising it we are just filling in the gaps
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
De-facto, this is the minimum wage for most people, by raising it we are just filling in the gaps
No, you are not. You are creating new gaps between the people capable of landing a job and producing the work output that justifies a minimum wage and those that cannot.

Those people will have to be taken care of by the government through another program since minimum wage isn't going to cut it.

Believing all people of all ages and abilities are capable of earning 15 dollars an hour is hubris of the highest order and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the differences between people.

While the government may provide charity through welfare, they cannot create a purpose for those people. People need jobs for more than just money. It's an instinctual trait to feel useful to the tribe and have a purpose. You can't purchase that with welfare checks. 
#26
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
lol yup, the guvernmentis a reflection and effect of the people, not the other way around, if the people are good, the government is good, if the people are bad, the government is bad, it has to be about changing the society of America and not fighting government tyranny when it is BASED ON the society itself
#27
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think it is both. Governmental policies can change society from the top down and society can change government from the ground up.
#28
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
i suppose
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
The only way to contain evil is to impose restrictions on everyone.

That includes restrictions on the government.
#30
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
if the minimum wage kept up with productivity, people would make over twenty bucks an hour. that means, on average businesses can afford to pay more. i dont think 15 cause there's a cost benefit that has to occcur, and i'd say that's too high. if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since the 1970's the minimum would be 12 bucks an hour. so that's what i think it should be. i assume most businesses can afford to pay more, even if some can't. it's not a viable business model to not pay enough. there's so many people that it's basically just exploiting them to pay them nothing.