TheGM
The voice of reason
Again what does any of that have do with crini making a bad analorgy about how the definitions of health and safety are fluid and have no meaning? like do you have a model train collection or something?
Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
What's the point of even continuing to talk about this? I already gave you an argument as to why it wasn't that bad of an analogy. It's a wonder why Crni even bothers writing the long ass posts he does when it comes to you.
TheGM
The voice of reason
That is a question for the ages considering I outright mock him for it and have let it be known I ain't reading that shit.
Because it gives me joy. If it wouldn't give me joy, I would stop doing it. But of course ... if those people actually would take their time and sometimes read what I write and actually understand it, they would know it because as of right now, I made it clear a couple of times. But that way for some reason they think they are "trolling" me big time.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The problem is when making or trying to pass laws, that will effect EVERYONE, there is no room for buzzwords that don't even have a meaning. How can people like Bernie expect to be taken seriously when he uses buzzwords that have more to do with emotional manipulation than cold hard facts.
Vagueness inevitably equals loss of control, akin to a 'no strings attached', situation, which is the definition of crazy. The biggest failure of Obamacare was things like ever increasing cost, and deliberate obfuscation of things like the 'Individual Mandate'. The single biggest reason why the any form of socialism is seen as dirty here is directly due to a healthy fear of government over reach, justified by vague laws. It sure is funny how the Patriot Acts vagueness was cause for alarm but runaway costs and government over reach, that is fine.
Simply put, policies should not be enacted on the basis of vagueness. Ones political platform should avoid vagueness as much as possible, on the left and the right.
Vagueness inevitably equals loss of control, akin to a 'no strings attached', situation, which is the definition of crazy. The biggest failure of Obamacare was things like ever increasing cost, and deliberate obfuscation of things like the 'Individual Mandate'. The single biggest reason why the any form of socialism is seen as dirty here is directly due to a healthy fear of government over reach, justified by vague laws. It sure is funny how the Patriot Acts vagueness was cause for alarm but runaway costs and government over reach, that is fine.
Simply put, policies should not be enacted on the basis of vagueness. Ones political platform should avoid vagueness as much as possible, on the left and the right.
Last edited:
Hoplite
Worth 1/5th of 100 grams of tea
Really, minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage. Those jobs are intended for 16 year olds who want the new FIFA, not grown adults who have the brainpower to do more difficult tasks. I'm gonna catch flak for this, but minimum wage shouldn't be the same hourly wage a fucking paramedic makes in same areas at $15/hour
The same way how traffic laws apply to everyone. This is not a novel idea or concept by the way. It's been done in countless of countries - and they still exist. At least the Stuff Bernie is proposing for the most part.
The whole point of it is to create a floor for people where they can not fall trough. So it won't even affect everyone. Like if we take the example of the "living wage". The point is push those people that earn much less than the living wage while holding a full time job, to push them over the poverty line and actually give a realistic chance to earn a comfortable wage which allows them to not just pay their rent and food but also make some savings over time. And here again ... this is not a novel idea, not even for the United States. You had conversations about this in the 1920s, after WW2, FDR argued for it, it has been implemented a couple of times, adjusted over the time and so on and so forth. It is also not a "socialist" idea, when we look at how many countries with free markets actually used minimum wages trough out their history.
If you want to talk about Obama Care then we have also to talk about the incredible resistance Obama faced, not just from from Republicans but even democrats. Which forced him to compromise. Now this administration is also demolishing it even further because for some reason Trump hates everything done by Obama. You will find an enemy in me here though. I am not saying Obama care is "good" or even the correct answer. However, for many Americans it has been proven to be the only chance of getting health care at all. One they can actually afford. Because no other company was willing to take them. It saved some peoples live.
Now what ever opinion you do have, factually speaking the kind of health care system you do have in the United States is a mess. It was a mess before Obama care. And it will be a mess without Obama care. This, is a sentient that the majority of Americans share and it can be backed up by data. In your current system it is cheaper for some hospitals to get patients on a buss, driving them over to Mexico so they can get their medications there. If this is the "efficiency" of the free market, well then I do not know why people give socialism such hate for being "inefficient". But jokes aside, just compare the costs of insulin in the United States (a drug the companies paid almost nothing for the research) with any other country, like Europe, Canada or Mexico and tell me that you have a good system.
Health Care, like it or not, is something of a public concern this started the moment nations started to become industrialised and you could actually give it some economic value. So it makes no more sense to leave health care in the hands of private companies like for example leaving the military only to private contractors or nuclear safety. Health Care should be run by the state for the same reason the military is run by the government. Because in the big picture it is a concern that always matters to all of us. The Corona virus is the best example for this right now.
Hoplite
Worth 1/5th of 100 grams of tea
Low blow, the public has been railing against that for years.
Low blow? I don't know what you're talking about.
Mainly for two reasons.
1. You have a ton of "adults" working full time in those jobs without any other alternative.
2. You're basically saying a 16 year old doesn't deserve a decent pay for doing it, because of ... reasons?
Here is the thing. If you do not give people a chance to actually make savings, then you also do not give them a chance to actually get in a position where they could at some point do a job training, earn higher educations etc. to actually get a job where they can earn a higher wage. Not to mention that those are jobs that someone has still to do. There are places where Mc Donalds is "forced" to pay their workers wages between 12 and 15 dollars - like here in Europe. And you know what? The company is not bankrupt. And people are not going crazy over it calling those Mc Donalds employees "entitled". They simply understand that a society needs people flipping burgers, just as they need Paramedics and arguing about why the one doesn't deserve a decent wage for his work, serves no purpose it's not like you take something from the paramedic away. Not to mention when it comes to the "living wage" which is in our societies the "minimum wage", is touching on many other industries. Not just Burgers in Mc Donalds. Industries where you don't have "teenagers" doing jobs.
It is also funny how this is historically not a new conversations regarding the United States. You had almost the same points arguing against "higher" wages before people started to actually unionise. That people are not "entitled" to higher wages for what ever reason.
Sorry, but that's a bullshit argument and you know it.
Mainly for two reasons.
1. You have a ton of "adults" working full time in those jobs without any other alternative.
2. You're basically saying a 16 year old doesn't deserve a decent pay for doing it, because of ... reasons?
Here is the thing. If you do not give people a chance to actually make savings, then you also do not give them a chance to actually get in a position where they could at some point do a job training, earn higher educations etc. to actually get a job where they can earn a higher wage. Not to mention that those are jobs that someone has still to do. There are places where Mc Donalds is "forced" to pay their workers wages between 12 and 15 dollars - like here in Europe. And you know what? The company is not bankrupt. And people are not going crazy over it calling those Mc Donalds employees "entitled". They simply understand that a society needs people flipping burgers, just as they need Paramedics and arguing about why the one doesn't deserve a decent wage for his work, serves no purpose it's not like you take something from the paramedic away. Not to mention when it comes to the "living wage" which is in our societies the "minimum wage", is touching on many other industries. Not just Burgers in Mc Donalds. Industries where you don't have "teenagers" doing jobs.
It is also funny how this is historically not a new conversations regarding the United States. You had almost the same points arguing against "higher" wages before people started to actually unionise. That people are not "entitled" to higher wages for what ever reason.
Yeah, so where did the lawmakers put, "This wage is only for 16 year olds! You have to pay your adults more"? These laws weren't written for 16 year olds specifically and don't even bother saying McDonald's is a teenager job because who the fuck runs McDonald's during school hours? Hmm, really interesting thought there.
Maybe paramedics should make more than 15 an hour? Why does an ambulance ride cost so fucking much if the dude saving your life is only getting 15 bucks an hour? You're pretty much saying that you think anyone who gets stuck in a minimum wage job deserves poverty because a paramedic makes 15/hour. I make about 23 and it increases about 1.50 or so every year. I would be happy to know that people are making nearly as much as I am working at McDonald's. It's not always about the brainpower, though when you do have to use that you should be earning even more, but how much is a person's time is worth.
No one who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty in a first world nation, no matter the job. They should be able to go to the doctor, dentist, afford a few things for entertainment and be able to rent a place to live and afford to eat decent food and drink clean water. They don't need brand new fancy cars, they don't need the ultimate gaming setup with every system the second it comes out. But they should be able to afford them if that's what they want and not have to worry about a small medical accident. In a first world nation mind you.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Crni
Traffic laws are not VAGUE. They are fairly transparent.
Like hoplite put it, teenages working at joke jobs, don"t need a living wage. That shit is temporary and not meant a person to take care of a family. Squad brings up school hours. Well, supply and demand should fix that TBH. There shouldn't be a fixed scenario in these kinds of situations.
If Socialists want to be taken seriously than advocate for free training that wil help people get employed and not pay for a useless degree. Want to fix wages? Then having a rolling scale based on supply and demand. If the left actually wants to make changes in healthcare, push for a strong foundation for healthcare by fixing existing healthcare laws like enacting transparent pricing instead of just skipping steps and going straight to UHC.
If 'poverty', is the issue than what defines poverty is the problem here. Since we cannot define poverty, then let us not try to make arguments based on such a vague notion then. In my posts, I have been advocating that welfare was meant for those who work 40 hours and still need help. I have been pushing for benefits for LEGAL citizens. I have advocated for either free training or abolishing degree requirements for jobs that can be done simply through on the job training.
But that isn't what some folks are pushing. Some are pushing for a literal 'no strings attached', policy, which is what I disagree with fundamentally. I say the guy in Crnis video, who made 6k in one year, needs to work a whole lot more as even based on minimum wage, he wasn't working full time, or even half that.
Traffic laws are not VAGUE. They are fairly transparent.
Like hoplite put it, teenages working at joke jobs, don"t need a living wage. That shit is temporary and not meant a person to take care of a family. Squad brings up school hours. Well, supply and demand should fix that TBH. There shouldn't be a fixed scenario in these kinds of situations.
If Socialists want to be taken seriously than advocate for free training that wil help people get employed and not pay for a useless degree. Want to fix wages? Then having a rolling scale based on supply and demand. If the left actually wants to make changes in healthcare, push for a strong foundation for healthcare by fixing existing healthcare laws like enacting transparent pricing instead of just skipping steps and going straight to UHC.
If 'poverty', is the issue than what defines poverty is the problem here. Since we cannot define poverty, then let us not try to make arguments based on such a vague notion then. In my posts, I have been advocating that welfare was meant for those who work 40 hours and still need help. I have been pushing for benefits for LEGAL citizens. I have advocated for either free training or abolishing degree requirements for jobs that can be done simply through on the job training.
But that isn't what some folks are pushing. Some are pushing for a literal 'no strings attached', policy, which is what I disagree with fundamentally. I say the guy in Crnis video, who made 6k in one year, needs to work a whole lot more as even based on minimum wage, he wasn't working full time, or even half that.
Last edited:
Hoplite
Worth 1/5th of 100 grams of tea
Let me list some jobs that make close $15 an hour and I dare you to tell me flipping burgers is as important as ANY of them
Forest and conservation workers at $14.36 an hour.
Pharmacy Technician at $15.23
Ophthalmic laboratory techs who make glasses at $15.85
Social services at $15.96
Phlebotomists who draw blood at $15.76
Minimum wage oughta be raised a few bucks, but not to any of these levels until these people are making more on average
Forest and conservation workers at $14.36 an hour.
Pharmacy Technician at $15.23
Ophthalmic laboratory techs who make glasses at $15.85
Social services at $15.96
Phlebotomists who draw blood at $15.76
Minimum wage oughta be raised a few bucks, but not to any of these levels until these people are making more on average
That wasn't me. Because they aren't joke jobs. If you go to a place and they have joke jobs then you're a joke spender I guess? Like what the fuck does that even mean? Joke jobs? Is all the money fast food rakes in a joke? I don't think so, I think those are some serious players right there. And they could at least afford to give their workers more money for their time. It's not just a teenager temporary job. McDondald's didn't open their hiring process and say "We don't recommend you work here unless you're a teenager." No, they streamlined everything that goes on in there so that it's quick and easy to learn because the job fucking sucks and people will quit the second they get something better. Sometimes that can take a while. They minimize everything to maximize profits. It's not hard to grasp. I've seen restaurants around me with much nicer staff and similar qualities of fast food but guess what? They pay 12/hour for the same thing at McDonald's and the service in general is way more personable.
Still, shit argument dude. Try again. That's not the point. We've said it. Read the posts. C'mon.
So is a living wage.
You do a full time job? You get this wage. No matter the job. Fairly standard in many countries.
Wrong question. It gets us nowhere.
What you should rather ask is, what do we gain from a living wage? And is it worth it to do it.
An economy needs people to consume goods. If people can not afford those goods then it means less money circulating in this economy. So, if you have a growing group of people which can not meet their basic needs, then the other groups, like the one you listed, will feel the effects as well. The guy flipping burgers for 6$ an hour, will not have a chance to go the Pharmacy store to buy the antibiotics he needs for his sick child. Which means less revenue - this also doesn't change just because someone is a teenager, they are consumers as well, they might buy a driver license from their money or a nice computer or what ever. But they will consume something. And this hits the Pharmacy Technician as well.
A good working economy is always circular. This means of course, yes you can't pay someone cleaning toilets or flipping burgers 200$ an hour but it also means that you shouldn't pay them 2$ an hour either. In a society as far as work and money goes, we do not exist in some kind of vacuum. Again this is not about "who's job is more worth". Even if you take a highly specialised doctor or engineer making I don't know 30-35$ an hour, he still needs a clean operating room, his staff still needs clean toilets, they need someone to prepare their food, places where they can eat, someone to clean the roads which they use to get to work and so no. In other words, their ability to perform their jobs needs all the other positions as well, they depend on it just as much as we need highly trained engineers and pharmacy technicians. So why should they not get a living wage for it? When you think certain position are more important than others just ask you self something, what would a society look like without anyone cleaning toilets? What would a society look like without waiters/waitresses? Or Janitors?
Like Squad said, in a society like the US, if you do a 40 hour job, you should not be under the poverty line. Plane and simple. No matter what type of job you do.
Last edited:
I'm also not necessarily saying 15/hour is the actual solution but people act like raising the minimum wage makes it be able to compare some jobs to others as if because one job gets paid this much then this person working here should get paid less because well I don't like it.
I get paid more than teachers but I also work 2 more months than them. Whose job is more valuable? Is my job more valuable than a person who saves your life? If we wanna start comparing the value of a job then let's do it. We'll find plenty of fucked up disparities.
I mean I'd argue that a surgeon who saved 100 lives last year might be more valuable than a guy who invested some money into fidget spinners. But that's not really how it works. The point is making sure people have the availability to live a decent life more easily. If you want fast food, then you should want the workers serving the fast food to not have to make jackshit. It's not about who else gets paid what.
I get paid more than teachers but I also work 2 more months than them. Whose job is more valuable? Is my job more valuable than a person who saves your life? If we wanna start comparing the value of a job then let's do it. We'll find plenty of fucked up disparities.
I mean I'd argue that a surgeon who saved 100 lives last year might be more valuable than a guy who invested some money into fidget spinners. But that's not really how it works. The point is making sure people have the availability to live a decent life more easily. If you want fast food, then you should want the workers serving the fast food to not have to make jackshit. It's not about who else gets paid what.
You make an excellent point here. If you ask me this shows how we all have been manipulated in an attempt to separate us from each other.
I would make the argument that a guy flipping burgers for 6$ an hour and a guy working in your position for 25$ an hour has probably more in common witch each other in terms of needs, problems and all that, then with extremely rich people. And I am not saying this to slander rich people. I am just saying that there are groups out there that have a very strong interest and motivations to keep "us" the commoners if you so want, arguing with each other and well separated. If you want so, two different peasants are closer to each other than each of them is to their own "king", so to speak.
And just for the record, this is historically not an exclusively "leftist" point of view but actually one that you can find in classic liberalism and conservativism as well.
I would make the argument that a guy flipping burgers for 6$ an hour and a guy working in your position for 25$ an hour has probably more in common witch each other in terms of needs, problems and all that, then with extremely rich people. And I am not saying this to slander rich people. I am just saying that there are groups out there that have a very strong interest and motivations to keep "us" the commoners if you so want, arguing with each other and well separated. If you want so, two different peasants are closer to each other than each of them is to their own "king", so to speak.
And just for the record, this is historically not an exclusively "leftist" point of view but actually one that you can find in classic liberalism and conservativism as well.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Why use the term living wage when it cannot be defined and is clearly a word designed for government over reach? Since the term itself is ever evolving, any government mandate based on it can also evolve, often massively, oftentimes with just as much potential for harm rather than good.
Any program has to operate on clear information and principles. Any program that is based on a 'no strings attached', is doomed to failure. This is why I brought up Obamacare. Costs were much higher than planned and continued to spiral out of control. This was primarily due to the fact that coverage for those with pre-existing conditions was completely guaranteed. This is like if someone who drove like a maniac, or was a serial traffic law breaker, was not only granted coverage, but also at government mandated cheap rates. Unlike car insurance, which is often a lot more transparent and based on ones on driving history, medical insurance has yet to be transparent or even reformed.
A surgeon makes what he makes because his skill is a lot less COMMON. All the well meaning aside, it is a fact of life that we put value in the old supply and demand. While everyone needs toilet cleaners, there is no SHORTAGE of them. Burger flippers, a dime a dozen. Skilled lawyers, those with experience and knowledge, not so run of the mill.
Maybe joke was a bad word, I stand corrected. As I pointed above.
How do we decide how much a persons time is 'worth', very vague and subjective indeed.
Also, often times, an increase in wages also correlates into an increased cost to the consumer. Again, this is not a class thing as it rings true of all jobs, from the high powered lawyer and skilled surgeon to the burger flipper or toilet cleaner.
This isn't a big conspiracy or a way to keep people divided, it is common sense.
Any program has to operate on clear information and principles. Any program that is based on a 'no strings attached', is doomed to failure. This is why I brought up Obamacare. Costs were much higher than planned and continued to spiral out of control. This was primarily due to the fact that coverage for those with pre-existing conditions was completely guaranteed. This is like if someone who drove like a maniac, or was a serial traffic law breaker, was not only granted coverage, but also at government mandated cheap rates. Unlike car insurance, which is often a lot more transparent and based on ones on driving history, medical insurance has yet to be transparent or even reformed.
A surgeon makes what he makes because his skill is a lot less COMMON. All the well meaning aside, it is a fact of life that we put value in the old supply and demand. While everyone needs toilet cleaners, there is no SHORTAGE of them. Burger flippers, a dime a dozen. Skilled lawyers, those with experience and knowledge, not so run of the mill.
Maybe joke was a bad word, I stand corrected. As I pointed above.
How do we decide how much a persons time is 'worth', very vague and subjective indeed.
Also, often times, an increase in wages also correlates into an increased cost to the consumer. Again, this is not a class thing as it rings true of all jobs, from the high powered lawyer and skilled surgeon to the burger flipper or toilet cleaner.
This isn't a big conspiracy or a way to keep people divided, it is common sense.
Last edited:
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
Living wage just means not struggling to make ends meet. It's not a nebulous term. Not everyone has the means or opportunities to jump into high-value careers like STEM or other tradeskills. And some of these jobs aren't meant for everyone - obviously.
But that doesn't mean they should be pushed to the edge of society by gentrification or because they don't work a job that is valuable. I guarantee you that a SWE at Google would start to really value that janitor when there's no one to clean the restrooms being used by hundreds of people daily.
Surviving isn't living...it's not good enough.
But that doesn't mean they should be pushed to the edge of society by gentrification or because they don't work a job that is valuable. I guarantee you that a SWE at Google would start to really value that janitor when there's no one to clean the restrooms being used by hundreds of people daily.
Surviving isn't living...it's not good enough.
Last edited:
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
What is considered 'struggling to survive'? Remember, we are enacting laws that will likely raise taxes or otherwise have far reaching effects.
Is someone struggling with paying the utilities? Food? Rent? All of it?
How much help is enough? How high of a wage is enough? How long is the support going to last?
Monthly bills for example are different for everyone. How can one legislate a specific wage increase for all individuals?
It is nebulous and that is why I hate these terms. It is a play on emotion.
If investment leaves a neighborhood, it is racism. If investment shows up, it is gentrification. Every answer always inevitably comes down to investment SHOULD come but the poor should get free or steeply discounted housing even though they had no hand in the investment.
Or there are 2 houses worth 30k. Development comes and the houses are now worth 100k.
It is perfectly ok to tell the one who can afford to pay to pay for the entirety of the home while the poor guy somehow deserves the other house for free or for 35k.
Is someone struggling with paying the utilities? Food? Rent? All of it?
How much help is enough? How high of a wage is enough? How long is the support going to last?
Monthly bills for example are different for everyone. How can one legislate a specific wage increase for all individuals?
It is nebulous and that is why I hate these terms. It is a play on emotion.
If investment leaves a neighborhood, it is racism. If investment shows up, it is gentrification. Every answer always inevitably comes down to investment SHOULD come but the poor should get free or steeply discounted housing even though they had no hand in the investment.
Or there are 2 houses worth 30k. Development comes and the houses are now worth 100k.
It is perfectly ok to tell the one who can afford to pay to pay for the entirety of the home while the poor guy somehow deserves the other house for free or for 35k.
Last edited: