California is first state to approve $15 minimum wage

[Captain N]

Sounds like shit just needs to be cheaper in California, like the same cost as other states.

Fix a screwed up, over priced economy by raising minimum wage? Seems like a bandaid fix. Does Bliz run California?

You mean the other states like this?

Welcome to Chicago and it's $3000/month rents for two bedroom apartments:

Sadly that's more expensive than my mortgage payments and I'm blocks away from Wrigley Field.

http://www.rent.com/illinois/chicago...bedroom-32-795

[Yvaelle]

People are free to move to Wyoming, Montana, or Alabama where its a low cost of living.

Low cost of living because there's nobody there and no work there.

[Dastreus]

In b4 "economic geniuses" who still believe trickle down economics can work and that minimum wage jobs are just society's way of hazing "youngins" into adulthood. Like a fucking frat.

Oh, I am too late. Well, fuck you anyway.

[Adam Jensen]

Low cost of living because there's nobody there and no work there.

I could move back in with my parents and save myself the 600+ dollars I spend on rent and internet.

The town is cheap too. Food is inexpensive. We've got a walmart.

But there aren't any jobs. Can't pay my college bills without a job.

[Vyxn]

I have never made the latter argument. So you're tilting at straw windmills, again.



Y'know, this isn't a game to see how many empty buzzwords you can stuff into a sentence.

Wealth inequality is itself a problem. If you're not shrinking that divide, you're allowing it to continue to be a problem.



It's not a "simple question". It's an impossible scenario. You can't just suddenly increase salaries for everyone by the same amount and pretend that will change anything. In your first option, 5k worth of wealth vanishes for absolutely no reason. In the second, 30k of wealth is magicked up out of the ether. You can't just wiggle your fingers and make wealth appear or disappear to fit your argument.

all wealth inequity propaganda does is play on the ignorance of the uneducated making them believe because the rich has more it causes the poor to have less because the uneducated are ignorant to the fact that wealth is created there isn't a finite amount of wealth there for one having more causes another to have less

the problem isn't some arbitrary gap all that rhetoric does is cause class warfare the problem is bringing people out of poverty and you do so by the creation of wealth not the redistributing of it. you can bring people out of poverty with out closing the wealth gap hell you can bring people out of poverty and at the same time increase the wealth gap

[breadisfunny]

all wealth inequity propaganda does is play on the ignorance of the uneducated making them believe because the rich has more it causes the poor to have less because the uneducated are ignorant to the fact that wealth is created there isn't a finite amount of wealth there for one having more causes another to have less

the problem isn't some arbitrary gap all that rhetoric does is cause class warfare the problem is bringing people out of poverty and you do so by the creation of wealth not the redistributing of it. you can bring people out of poverty with out closing the wealth gap hell you can bring people out of poverty and at the same time increase the wealth gap

you done masturbating to trickle down economics yet vyxn?

[Shadowferal]

you done masturbating to trickle down economics yet vyxn?

I wasn't even going to bother with that bit of nonsense myself.

[Vyxn]

you done masturbating to trickle down economics yet vyxn?

lets see here
JFK cut taxes and regulations median family income increased GDP growth on average of 4% and higher
Reagan cut taxes and regulations median family income increased GDP growth of on average 4% and higher
Obama increased taxes and regulations median family income decreased never had GDP growth over 2%

I think I would choose trickle down economics then your leftist solution any day of the week

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't even going to bother with that bit of nonsense myself.

wealth inequity isn't a measure of crap the goal is to increase income measuring a gap isn't a measure of increased income


so tell me what is better having one that makes 20k a year start making 25k and another that makes 100k a year looses pay and only makes 90k which shrinks the gap
or
the one that was making 20k starts making 30k and the one that was making 100k starts making 120k and widens the wealth gap?

if you would truthfully answer that simple question it will prove how wealth inequality is just leftist class warfare bull shit propaganda

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Sounds like shit just needs to be cheaper in California, like the same cost as other states.

Fix a screwed up, over priced economy by raising minimum wage? Seems like a bandaid fix. Does Bliz run California?

I said something similar in another post in this thread. Adjusting the minimum wage is a first step, but there are larger systemic problems they need to address afterwards. They won't, which is the problem, but that doesn't mean that wage adjustments aren't sorely needed.

[Endus]

all wealth inequity propaganda does is play on the ignorance of the uneducated making them believe because the rich has more it causes the poor to have less because the uneducated are ignorant to the fact that wealth is created there isn't a finite amount of wealth there for one having more causes another to have less

It's not a wealth creation issue. It's a wealth distribution issue. This is exacerbated by wealth creation, because having wealth to invest makes it much easier to create more wealth.

And while wealth can be created, it can't be created infinitely because you want more, which you always end up arguing when you bring this up. You're literally arguing that everyone has a golden goose, but only rich people are smart enough to gather the eggs. It's dehumanizing and fantastical.

the problem isn't some arbitrary gap all that rhetoric does is cause class warfare the problem is bringing people out of poverty and you do so by the creation of wealth not the redistributing of it. you can bring people out of poverty with out closing the wealth gap hell you can bring people out of poverty and at the same time increase the wealth gap

There's no such thing as "redistribution of wealth". Wealth exists to be distributed. Every transaction of any kind, anywhere, ever, is a "redistribution of wealth". There's no need for the "re-" at the front.

No, you cannot just infinitely generate new wealth by wanting it really hard. You keep rooting your argument in that, and it's silly.

[Adam Jensen]

wealth inequity isn't a measure of crap the goal is to increase income measuring a gap isn't a measure of increased income

And you ignore the fact that income went DOWN for everyone except the top 20%

[Triginhil]

they can lower minimum wage all they want, everything else will go up in price to compensate. personally, i dont care, im part of a union and my contract states that if minimum wage goes up, my hourly pay gets increased by the same amount.

[Endus]

lets see here
JFK cut taxes and regulations median family income increased GDP growth on average of 4% and higher
Reagan cut taxes and regulations median family income increased GDP growth of on average 4% and higher
Obama increased taxes and regulations median family income decreased never had GDP growth over 2%

I think I would choose trickle down economics then your leftist solution any day of the week

Hey look, actual, specific claims.

You keep mentioning GDP growth per year, so for reference, here's a source that lists the yearly growth rates, we'll be pulling from this as we go on; http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

You also reference tax rates; here's a source for that. http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...y_adjusted.pdf

So, JFK was President from 1961 until his assassination in November, 1963. Income tax rates remained the same from 1961 through 1963. JFK didn't cut them. He supported doing so, but the high GDP growth was despite the top marginal tax rate being 91%. This argues against you, by the numbers, and you had them wrong. Taxes didn't get cut until 1964, under Johnson.

Reagan was President from '81-'89. GDP growth generally slowed over his presidency; it started at above 9.5%, and had been over 10% for several years, and by the end of his presidency, had dipped to 6.48%. So his policies, if you're arguing they affected GDP growth, hurt it. In fact, he realized this, and tried to correct this by raising tax rates on the lower classes, while chopping them even further for the wealthy. Which saw the GDP growth dip to just 4.5% in 1990. Wrong about the numbers, again.

Obama took over in 2009. At the time, GDP growth was at just 0.11% per year, and had been negative in 2008. That's all Bush Jr. By 2010, Obama had turned that around to 4.5% growth, and it's waffled around that 4% mark ever since. While it's not the highest point in US economic history, he's never hit the lows we saw under Bush. And other than that first year, 2009, he's never had a GDP growth rate under 3%. So, yet again, just straight up wrong about the numbers.

This is the problem. You make up facts and pretend that your made-up numbers are more real than the real ones.

But hey; don't believe ME. The numbers are right there, in the links, cited from official sources.

[Deleted]

Give more money to people that "flip burgers" for a living, I am sure a person with the burger flipping skills needs to be paid more money for it.
Paying 2400 a month (if the person worked 40 hours a week) to a person flipping burgers, are you kidding me? :S

[RaoBurning]

Give more money to people that "flip burgers" for a living, I am sure a person with the burger flipping skills needs to be paid more money for it.
Paying 2400 a month (if the person worked 40 hours a week) to a person flipping burgers, are you kidding me? :S

Imagine how much people with more marketable skills will be able to negotiate for. *shimmery wealth montage*

[Deleted]

Imagine how much people with more marketable skills will be able to negotiate for. *shimmery wealth montage*

yeah, I'm sure everyone will get an increase when its not forced by the government (city).

[RaoBurning]

yeah, I'm sure everyone will get an increase when its not forced by the government (city).

Doctors don't make minimum wage, so I'd reckon on some fairly trivial time scale the answer to that is yes.

[Deleted]

Doctors don't make minimum wage, so I'd reckon on some fairly trivial time scale the answer to that is yes.

I can walk into the CEO's office and ask for a 50% pay rise and I will get laughed out the office.
If no one is making him pay me 50% more he will never pay me 50% more.

Not sure how that is difficult to understand?

I am sure you had multiple 50% increases in pay in your life because you are so amazing at negotiating.

[Deleted]

I wonder if people that already made 15 dollars an hour will get a pay increase as well.

Doubt it's very pleasent to suddenly be on minimum wage level, even though you have a decent job.

[Orlong]

You mean the other states like this?

Welcome to Chicago and it's $3000/month rents for two bedroom apartments:

Sadly that's more expensive than my mortgage payments and I'm blocks away from Wrigley Field.

http://www.rent.com/illinois/chicago...bedroom-32-795

Or you could move to Wyoming and buy a really nice single family 3 bedroom home under $100,000

- - - Updated - - -

Low cost of living because there's nobody there and no work there.

Sure there is, Its just not sit on your ass all day and do nothing at a computer work. Its good honest hard labor like ranch work, landscaping, construction, and warehouse work. You could also work for the local, county, or state government. And there not being many people there is a blessing. Who the hell wants a bunch of people around them all the time and having to listen to them yell and argue, and traffic noises, sirens, horns, etc...