wealth inequality

[Machismo]

But I did justify it, the minimum wage eliminated the majority of poverty at the time and created a robust middle class. That's the justification for it. Your justification for taking it away is pathetic when compared to that. It's selfish, Randian anarchy crap.

Then you may as well make businesses pay $1000 an hour, right? After all, you claim that forcing them to pay more does not cause any harm.

By that same token, it wouldn't be harmful to you if they passes a law that said you specifically had to give all your money to charity.

- - - Updated - - -

When your choice is starvation or death, that's no real different than choosing to follow the law or a man with a gun. That's something you continue to fail to grasp, when you claim they have a choice and that choice is between shitty pay and shitty work or death, that is no different of a "choice" than a man with a gun forcing you to follow a law.

How is that a business' problem?

It's not. That is the part you fail to grasp. If it were, then any business that chose not to hire someone would be causing that very same "harm" you seem to want to blame them for.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then you may as well make businesses pay $1000 an hour, right? After all, you claim that forcing them to pay more does not cause any harm.

By that same token, it wouldn't be harmful to you if they passes a law that said you specifically had to give all your money to charity.

The minimum wage is meant to allow people to live, not live opulently. Those who support the minimum wage still support a tiered system of payment whereby people who have more valuable work are paid more. Your silly hyperbole is meaningless.

The choice you give the workers, between starvation and shitty work is as meaningful as the choice businesses have between following law and going under.

[unfilteredJW]

Then you may as well make businesses pay $1000 an hour, right? After all, you claim that forcing them to pay more does not cause any harm.

I'll never get tired of the "let's pay them in unicorns and cocaine" rhetoric.

[Captain N]

Ah, good old argumentum ad absurdum.

You have chosen to engage the troll

/throws bottle of ibuprofen to Bovinity

Good luck. You're going to need this!

[Machismo]

Ah, good old argumentum ad absurdum.

He claimed no harm was caused, so I want to know exactly when harm is caused. Is it caused if you demand a business pay $1000 an hour? Seriously, does it cause harm? Surely he would agree that harm is caused at that point. So now it's just a matter of finding out how much money he is willing to take away form businesses before he considers it to be harmful. Moreover, I want to know exactly how he gets to that figure.

[Machismo]

The minimum wage is meant to allow people to live, not live opulently. Those who support the minimum wage still support a tiered system of payment whereby people who have more valuable work are paid more. Your silly hyperbole is meaningless.

The choice you give the workers, between starvation and shitty work is as meaningful as the choice businesses have between following law and going under.

You continue to dodger my questions:

Is it harm if you force a business to pay $1000 an hour? If you believe it to be so, at what point is it no longer harmful. I want to know what exact figure you believe that to be, and exactly how you come to that figure.

You also continue to dodge about those other issues I brought up. Are those examples of harm?

- - - Updated - - -

I'll never get tired of the "let's pay them in unicorns and cocaine" rhetoric.

I simply want to know at what exact dollar amount he thinks forcing a company to pay becomes harm.

[Captain N]

Don't worry, I'm already in my ejection seat, prepping to pull the lever.

That was a close one....

[Cthulhu 2020]

He claimed no harm was caused, so I want to know exactly when harm is caused. Is it caused if you demand a business pay $1000 an hour? Seriously, does it cause harm? Surely he would agree that harm is caused at that point. So now it's just a matter of finding out how much money he is willing to take away form businesses before he considers it to be harmful. Moreover, I want to know exactly how he gets to that figure.

$1000 is not needed for a living wage, so why are you even bringing it up? It seems you're creating some strawman you can beat down because you can't beat my actual point.

- - - Updated - - -

You continue to dodger my questions:

Is it harm if you force a business to pay $1000 an hour? If you believe it to be so, at what point is it no longer harmful. I want to know what exact figure you believe that to be, and exactly how you come to that figure.

You also continue to dodge about those other issues I brought up. Are those examples of harm?

- - - Updated - - -



I simply want to know at what exact dollar amount he thinks forcing a company to pay becomes harm.

You only created that question because you know I'm right about a living wage not causing harm, and actually saving more people and creating the middle class. Why do you want the middle class to disappear so badly?

[Machismo]

$1000 is not needed for a living wage, so why are you even bringing it up? It seems you're creating some strawman you can beat down because you can't beat my actual point.

You didn't answer the fucking question.

is demanding that an employer pay $1000 an hour harm to that employer? If so, at what exact dollar amount is forcing an employer to pay no longer considered harm, and how did you get to that number?

You also didn't address those other issues I brought up. Are those examples of harm?

Dodge all you like, it just shows that you've backed yourself into a corner in regards to what constitutes harm.

What it shows, is that you are not basing your assessment of harm on how much damage you are doing to that business, but how much you feel you should be helping that individual. In reality, you are rationalizing the harm you wish to cause, by saying that the money you are taking is going to help others. That does not mean no harm occurred, merely that you are fine with the harm, and consider it a justified expense for helping someone else.

[Gestopft]

@Machismo you don't seem to account for the fact that society already puts a gun to people's heads. The gun is called homelessness and starvation. People need jobs or they can't afford to live in our society. Since a shitty job is better than no job, businesses can take advantage of that dynamic. There is a huge difference in bargaining power, so while workers "agree" to the conditions, the agreement isn't actually mutual.

As far as harm goes- all of society is harmed when businesses pay what they want to pay. Crime-ridden slums, increased taxpayer burden, lack of opportunity, and damage to the economy are all harmful.

And as far as a $1000/hour minimum wage: you are just being ridiculous. Nobody is asking for that. But on the topic, an wage that high would very likely be harmful if businesses couldn't succeed. Society is at its best when both businesses AND people can prosper together, and letting business set the rules is not a recipe for that.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You didn't answer the fucking question.

You made an absurd questions because you were caught being a hypocrite. You think people who get stuck in a situation where their choices are shitty work are death are there by their own fault, yet businesses who are faced with paying people a living wage, and folding, is the fault of everyone else.

A business that fails does so by its own actions, as per your very own logic. We've created the middle class via minimum wage and worker protection laws. You want to dismantle gubbamint as it has created this healthy middle class because you dislike gubbamint, not because you've been able to demonstrate that it causes any actual harm to business.

Your question is irrelevant, it is a silly hypothetical that serves no purpose. People do not need $1000/hr for a living wage. When we get to a point where $1000/hr an hour is needed for people to live a decent, bare minimum life, your question will be answered.

[Machismo]

@Machismo you don't seem to account for the fact that society already puts a gun to people's heads. The gun is called homelessness and starvation. People need jobs or they can't afford to live in our society. Since a shitty job is better than no job, businesses can take advantage of that dynamic. There is a huge difference in bargaining power, so while workers "agree" to the conditions, the agreement isn't actually mutual.

As far as harm goes- all of society is harmed when businesses pay what they want to pay. Crime-ridden slums, increased taxpayer burden, lack of opportunity, and damage to the economy are all harmful.

And as far as a $1000/hour minimum wage: you are just being ridiculous. Nobody is asking for that. But on the topic, an wage that high would very likely be harmful if businesses couldn't succeed. Society is at its best when both businesses AND people can prosper together, and letting business set the rules is not a recipe for that.

I understand that people often negotiate with little, but is that the fault of the business itself? If it's not, then why punish the business?

Bringing up the $1000 an hour was about harm. He claimed that forcing a business to pay more did not cause it harm. I think most would agree that forcing them to pay $1000 an hour would cause harm. So, at what point does the demand to pay more become harmful? I would really love for him to answer it, because it seems like an extremely difficult thing to try and answer...

[Cthulhu 2020]

@Machismo you don't seem to account for the fact that society already puts a gun to people's heads. The gun is called homelessness and starvation. People need jobs or they can't afford to live in our society. Since a shitty job is better than no job, businesses can take advantage of that dynamic. There is a huge difference in bargaining power, so while workers "agree" to the conditions, the agreement isn't actually mutual.

As far as harm goes- all of society is harmed when businesses pay what they want to pay. Crime-ridden slums, increased taxpayer burden, lack of opportunity, and damage to the economy are all harmful.

And as far as a $1000/hour minimum wage: you are just being ridiculous. Nobody is asking for that. But on the topic, an wage that high would very likely be harmful if businesses couldn't succeed. Society is at its best when both businesses AND people can prosper together, and letting business set the rules is not a recipe for that.

He won't admit this, he denies US history. We know why there was mass poverty and starvation, and he seems to want to return us to that time, but he believes his laissez-faire economics, which have been proven to not work, will suddenly work.

[Glorious Leader]

Basically agree though it is worth pointing out that in many cases government will aid the capitalists rather than the workers. It would obviously be better to have a pro-worker government, but there hasn't been such a thing in the west for a while.

Agreed and in fact people as far back as Rousseau have made the argument that the state is largely just a tool to guarantee the largesse of the rich and the opulent minority. People Machismo and the interests he's defending are actually in reality vulgar Marxists, they recognize class struggle is real and they've been waging a war again the lower classes for decades (as admitted by members of that class Warren buffet for example) they simple have the values inverted. Business and the rich are what's important, the mass of poor shall only eat of their table scraps.


To get a working class goverment you would need several factors in place most of which do not exist anymore but could potentially be revived. You'd worker solidarity movements (unions) and you'd need an actual strong left group of politicians. Sanders is a good start but he's what would have been called a new deal Democrat 50 years ago. You need anarchist, socialist and yes communist parties to be strong to act as a countervailing political force. That doesn't mean you have tk agree with them but their existence is necessary to keep things in check. To challenge the established order.

[Machismo]

You made an absurd questions because you were caught being a hypocrite. You think people who get stuck in a situation where their choices are shitty work are death are there by their own fault, yet businesses who are faced with paying people a living wage, and folding, is the fault of everyone else.

A business that fails does so by its own actions, as per your very own logic. We've created the middle class via minimum wage and worker protection laws. You want to dismantle gubbamint as it has created this healthy middle class because you dislike gubbamint, not because you've been able to demonstrate that it causes any actual harm to business.

Your question is irrelevant, it is a silly hypothetical that serves no purpose. People do not need $1000/hr for a living wage. When we get to a point where $1000/hr an hour is needed for people to live a decent, bare minimum life, your question will be answered.

You continue to dodge, because you've backed yourself into a corner, and cannot answer it in a logical manner. Good game, better luck next time.

If you are forcing a business to do something, you are making that decision, not the business. You can feel free to justify the harm you wish to cause all you like, but you are choosing to cause harm. Just because some people are better off, does not mean your choice is not harming others.

My question is absolutely relevant, it demonstrates your lack of logical consistency. If you claim forcing them to pay a "living wage" is not harm, then at what point exactly does forcing them to pay become harmful? I think you and I would both agree that forcing a company to pay $1000 an hour is harmful. So, where exactly is that line, and how did you come to that answer?

[Glorious Leader]

I understand that people often negotiate with little, but is that the fault of the business itself? If it's not, then why punish

Actually yes because the business interest will lobby to male law in their favor. If the government decides to ignore that interest then the business will leave to the government that aceeds to theit drmands and the state will be "worse off" for it. In this way business is directly responsible for the poor conditions workers face. Ultimarely governments will aceed to that power becauase ECONOMIC POWER will always trump political. Since the means of production will always be privately held (private properrty) civil governmet will almost always bend tp the business ineterest. Now you say get the government out! And has been pointed out to you multiple times it doesn't solve anything. The assholes who buy the politicians for nefarious ends will still be assholes and will still have nefarious ends.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I understand that people often negotiate with little, but is that the fault of the business itself? If it's not, then why punish the business?

Bringing up the $1000 an hour was about harm. He claimed that forcing a business to pay more did not cause it harm. I think most would agree that forcing them to pay $1000 an hour would cause harm. So, at what point does the demand to pay more become harmful? I would really love for him to answer it, because it seems like an extremely difficult thing to try and answer...

There's a reason that every time we raise the minimum wage, it happens in small increments over a number of years. Nobody could afford $1000/hr today, it's not possible, that's why minimum wage advocates ALWAYS also say we should raise it over a number of years because easing into it does work. Theoretically $1000/hr could work given enough time to ease into it, but people who advocate for minimum wage are not also advocating for people to live in extreme opulence and luxury, minimum wage should be enough to live on, and if that person wants more, they should work for it.

Your ridiculous question has been answered and rebutted.

Minimum wage works just fine, since companies can afford it. You backed yourself into a corner over claiming that individuals bear all the responsibility for their situation, but businesses do not. Good game.

[Machismo]

Actually yes because the business interest will lobby to male law in their favor. Now you say get the government out! And has been pointed out to you multiple times it doesn't solve anything. The assholes who buy the politicians for nefarious ends will still be assholes and will still have nefarious ends.

And I don't support it when businesses lobby to push laws into their favor.

Logical consistency is a wonderful thing.

[Fugus]

I understand that people often negotiate with little, but is that the fault of the business itself? If it's not, then why punish the business?

Bringing up the $1000 an hour was about harm. He claimed that forcing a business to pay more did not cause it harm. I think most would agree that forcing them to pay $1000 an hour would cause harm. So, at what point does the demand to pay more become harmful? I would really love for him to answer it, because it seems like an extremely difficult thing to try and answer...

There is actually a curve to that and the optimal point can be debatable but what is pretty well known is we are way off on the low side of the curve.

So, I would say that it lies somewhere below $1,000 but somewhere above $15.

Below a living wage, that company becomes more a liability to society than a benefit when its people are forced to rely on welfare to survive even while working a job.

A living wage forced the company to pay the full price of its labor instead of getting the government to subsidize their payrolls and has those workers paying taxes and not collecting welfare instead of now where they are not paying taxes and collecting it.

The absolute lowest any job is worth is the cost of providing for the person doing it, paying below that is getting someone else to subsidize them and take care of their responsibilities so they don't have to.

[Machismo]

There's a reason that every time we raise the minimum wage, it happens in small increments over a number of years. Nobody could afford $1000/hr today, it's not possible, that's why minimum wage advocates ALWAYS also say we should raise it over a number of years because easing into it does work. Theoretically $1000/hr could work given enough time to ease into it, but people who advocate for minimum wage are not also advocating for people to live in extreme opulence and luxury, minimum wage should be enough to live on, and if that person wants more, they should work for it.

Your ridiculous question has been answered and rebutted.

Is it harmful? That was the question. Answer the fucking question. Here, I'll post them again.

If you claim forcing them to pay a "living wage" is not harm, then at what point exactly does forcing them to pay become harmful? I think you and I would both agree that forcing a company to pay $1000 an hour is harmful. So, where exactly is that line, and how did you come to that answer?

Secondly, you never addressed those other issues I brought up, are those examples of harm?

- - - Updated - - -

There is actually a curve to that and the optimal point can be debatable but what is pretty well known is we are way off on the low side of the curve.

So, I would say that it lies somewhere below $1,000 but somewhere above $15.

Below a living wage, that company becomes more a liability to society than a benefit when its people are forced to rely on welfare to survive even while working a job.

A living wage forced the company to pay the full price of its labor instead of getting the government to subsidize their payrolls and has those workers paying taxes and not collecting welfare instead of now where they are not paying taxes and collecting it.

The absolute lowest any job is worth is the cost of providing for the person doing it, paying below that is getting someone else to subsidize them and take care of their responsibilities so they don't have to.

So show me how you get to that number. Where does it become harmful to a business to force it to pay its labor?

Why is it up to a business to make sure its employees have enough money? is that somewhere in the contract they sign?