Yeah...about that $15 minimum wage .....

[Tehshocka]

Yes, because when the poor have slightly more disposable income they invest it.... SS is also paid for through 2030, it has a surplus so it doesn't actually affect the yearly budget. SS could easily be fixed by increasing the current cap which probably needs done anyways.

Perfect so you agree with me that poor people are terrible with money. So why are you and your ilk wanting me to give up more of mine to them?

[Deleted]

This is why you have collective agreements and unions; then your employer can't just "reduce your hours" whenever they want to.

[Tehshocka]

This is why you have collective agreements and unions; then your employer can't just "reduce your hours" whenever they want to.

The UAW almost killed the American Auto Industry. Please with all do respect GFY.

[Deleted]

The UAW almost killed the American Auto Industry. Please with all do respect GFY.

Right, right... Well perhaps it should've died, then. In fact, it probably should have, killing off the gas guzzlers, and forcing companies like Tesla to fill in the gap with their electric solutions.

[Tehshocka]

More of yours???? That's how governments work, they take taxes and spend it on everyone. No Libertarian government exist because they all failed or had to change very quickly because it doesn't work.

Also it isn't that poor people are terrible with money it's that they barely scrap by. If they get a little extra money they buy new cloths or fix their broken car. It has nothing to do with being bad with money, but everything to do with having zero disposable income.

So do you agree or disagree that there is an inherent reason why poor people stay poor and only a few move up in class? If yes, what is that reason.

The fact that you need a ponzi scheme such as SSec to get poor people to invest (which they are doing involuntary) screams to me how inept people are with money.

- - - Updated - - -

NO pretty sure that had more to do with American Auto Industry producing crap for almost 3 decades. Japan, Germany, UK, and and virtually every other major car manufacturer have much stronger unions. Hell Japan the CEO aren't even really in charge of the company, they are just the spokesmen.

Im pretty damn sure retirement benefits from UAW workers were causing the collapse. The shit vehicles were secondary.

by benefits I mean pensions.

[Glorious Leader]

Actually no, cutting SSec and or allowing young folks to actually get out of it completely will put money back into their pockets to invest at a much HIGHER interest rate.

I would vote for a phase out of Social Security immediately. The coffers wont last another 15 years. Why should I pay into something I'll never receive and can do a better job earning interest on?

Cutting Medicaid to sustainable levels and given to individuals who actually need it would be a great start. I don't give a shit about any able'd bodied American getting kicked off. They need to go to work. Period.

Both of those programs cost to the tune of over 2 Tr. USD. That is a pig that needs to be gutted.

Again this is absolutley ignorant. Every dollar you cut from the federal defecit is a dollar lost from the private sector. The federal debt is the private sector savings.

- - - Updated - - -

Perfect so you agree with me that poor people are terrible with money. So why are you and your ilk wanting me to give up more of mine to them?

Capitalism functions around the turn over of money. It ceases to function when people stop spending. This is the most basic shit.

[Tehshocka]

Again this is absolutley ignorant. Every dollar you cut from the federal defecit is a dollar lost from the private sector. The federal debt is the private sector savings.

- - - Updated - - -



Capitalism functions around the turn over of money. It ceases to function when people stop spending. This is the most basic shit.

Okay smartass

What would you do since you have it all figured out.

[-Nurot]

I claimed that a large portion of Democrat voters are on some form of social benefit system, which still has not been debunked at all despite you wanting to claim it is. It's verifiable with just basic logic. Hm, one side wants to take away social systems or tone them down. The other side and its voter base is in an uproar that they want to take things from them. Could be related. . . just maybe. . .That is just given fact, just like the fact immigrants coming in also tend to vote Democrat, mostly because the Democrats welcome them with open arms and give them things. Go ahead and look up any chart on what party immigrants tend to vote for. You'll find the same exact trends, immigrants coming in tend to more often vote Democrat than Republican.

A large portion..... alright fine, then we agree, that a large portion of Democrats and Trump supporters are also on some sort of social benefit system. Again, what's your point, you again try to make Democrats look bad using a false narrative, by claiming basic "logic". State benefit usage is about equal. So why try to disingenuously label Dems. as moochers, seeing as the American population uses benefits about equally.

Though hey, I made it clear as day on many things already for you and you somehow still are unable to follow the red sharpie arrow. If I wanted to take away Obamacare, and someone said "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY HEALTHCARE!" Then logically it would stand to reason this person favors Obamacare because the benefit from it. So when you have the entire Democrat party and their voters in a panic over "THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR WELFARE AND HEALTHCARE!" it should stand to reason it's very likely a number of them are on these systems. Just a thought. I mean that's what basic logic brought me to. If you somehow are incapable of seeing it any further you're either just incapable of ever understanding the point, or you're being intellectually dishonest by choosing to outright ignore logical conclusions instead of state how they are illogical. I've pointed out many of your faults in logic, you've pointed out none in mine that haven't been you arguing against a strawman that you set up, mind you.

This conversation isn't about Obamacare.... I'm pretty sure the numbers on Obamacare have nothing to do with the state/federal benifits we were discussing. In fact they'd because skewed because people are required to have insurance. So this entire strawman you've just setup, to claim that I've set one up is mind boggling..... Nice job.

Can you even keep up with the discussion? This is about what, the third time you quoted something I said, read it wrong then I had to correct you on? Like not even "Oh I was vague" like you quote it and somehow screw it up.

You quoted the same info-graph. Posted it a second time as some sort of proof that food stamp = welfare and all state/federal assistance. Then I quoted the article..... then you again read it wrong. Unless you're vaguely referring to something else without being specific?

I also never said Democrats were the only ones reliant on benefits, nice strawman. Already run out of things you argue so now it's just blatant deception? Also, Pew Research is actually considered one of the few credible sources anymore on a neutral level. You're citing polls from places that are blatantly biased. There's a specific reason I'm not citing figure from Breitbart articles. Though hey, grats you managed to harp on me after I pointed out the polls the person I was responding to with the post was using polls from biased sources. I'm using one that's considered fairly neutral.

Funny, the other day a Trump supporter was going on and on about how pewresearch was biased.

"I claimed that a large portion of Democrat voters are on some form of social benefit system".

So you pick democratic voters, when almost just as many Republican voters use state/federal assistance and use it as a strawman, and then try to call out the point that I've made that almost everyone uses the assistance equally per the facts and the article you linked an inf-graph from and misread, as a strawman.

"So when you say, "So you might actually do well to learn how to read."" Well considering I'm not even half way done with this and I've already spotted one strawman, one blatant lie, and one attempt at pointing out a supposed hypocrisy that doesn't fit (See above paragraph) Yeah, you could do well with learning how to read. Also apparently learning how to actually argue your points.

Of course the person who throws around the phrase "So you might actually do well to learn how to read." , uses multiple strawman arguments to fit their narrative and tries to claim the other is using them.

It would suit you well to read the articles that you post info-graphs from. I know it's hard, but please try.

Learn how to articulate your argument without trying to turn it into insults when you provide no facts and base your words on lies and hypocrisy.

Maybe actually provide a point on something other that trying to blame an entire party for people using state/federal benefits.

"Yeah, you could do well with learning how to read. Also apparently learning how to actually argue your points." Is not an argument now matter how clever you think you're being. Again, providing no evidence and just spouting ignorance is not a talking point no matter how many times you mention middle America or Trump.... Nice stating the same insult over and over, I could help you come up with one if you'd like, since that's what you're doing no instead of claiming anything that resembles an argument.

-What does Trump have to do anything when his own supporters are taking as much advantage of said benefits.

We do not want the systems. We do not want your socialized nonsense and unfortunately you won't let us opt out of paying for your lunacy, so we have to push for getting them toned down or removed. Trump ran on simplifying the tax code and reducing taxes by cutting what we have to pay towards things like healthcare. I fully expect him to follow through on it because that's why I voted for him.

And yet, the people who BENEFITED the most from the systems were Trump supporters. Amazing I had to say it again. Talk about saying something 3 times. probably didn't even read the link, that figures. When you refer to a group of people and make blanket statements you can't then make a blanket statement referring to your own opinion simply because you're part of the group. Trump supporters benefited the most. They were the ones the most PULLED OUT OF POVERTY by state/federal benefits. Don't be ashamed of that. You want to identify with the group and somehow turn it into a point. Own it. Be proud of it.

-"What do Democrats have to do with anything, when Republicans and Independents are just as likely to take advantage of said benefits"

Democrats are the ones pushing for them. If they exist people will take advantage of them no matter what. You seem to forget the morality of people tends to fade in the presence of free stuff. I harp on the Democrats because these are THEIR systems. THEY are the reason these exist. I am holding them accountable for a colossal error that they made. Just as any normal person would do.

I haven't seen a single law proposed by Trump or the Republicans to remove, welfare, food stamps, employments this Presidency. I love how these are no longer federal systems, but Democratic, because you feel like they should shoulder the blame even if their creation wasn't bipartisan.[/QUOTE]

If it was Republicans pushing for more welfare benefits I'd fight them too. On an ideological level I do not like these systems and oppose them fully. I don't care who shoves them out, I disagree with them.

Wait who's pushing for more welfare benefits? Can you link this for me? Has this been proposed in the house or senate? I know you're for taking them away, but who's proposing more?

-"Your info-graph literally only covers food stamps, which show 22%, there's still 10% republicans. As for the rest of the article if you ACTUALLY read it shows that state benefits in general are used about equally. And if you even bothered to open the other link you would have seen, that Republicans benefit the most from benefits, because it helps more Republicans actually come out of poverty."

One number is over twice the size of the other, however they must both be equal because they both have different representation. Like no joke are you trolling me right now or are you actually this stupid and think this way? Also cool, some Republicans can get off welfare. Which only reinforces the point I made where it only brings you just high enough to where if you jump, claw, and kick your way out you might escape the pit. I know people who have families that have been on welfare for years and their standing hasn't gotten better, nor do they try to make it better. People like this are a drain on the system.

"The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps."

That's an 8 percent difference. That was also back in 2012 when some Conserves, voted Repub.

Again food stamps are not welfare.... Just because Repubs use more welfare, medicaid, or unemployment to narrow that gap to 8% makes it better?

Welfare is a great idea in theory, problem is too many people abuse it so it needs to be removed because now it's an unnecessary burden we put on ourselves because people see free stuff and suddenly have no problem soaking in the free stuff if they qualify for it. Which is why it needs either a total rework, or a minimum requirement on work/community service, if neither of these can be done remove it. In its current state it is devastating us.

If families received a livable wage is it not possible that we could limit state/federal benefits to single parents and the disabled? People working full-time AND still being on State/Federal assistance because they need to survive is pretty horrible. How are you devastated by the current state/federal programs?

"So again which part of the article you posted are you having a hard time reading? Maybe I can sound it out for you. That 22% literally only appears in 2 places in the article and none it the context you are pretending. Is it the words, or the numbers your, having difficulty with? I can't highlight certain pieces or break it down for you phonetically if need be."

You must be incredibly blind if you seriously can't see how it fits. Let me break it down for you one more time and hope that it might get through to you:

22% of them identify as Democrat on a partisan level. That means even though they might have Republican ideologies, or center ideologies, they still consider themselves to be Democrats. As such, they will vote for Democrat candidates, who will likely vote for more Democrat plans such as subsidizing more things, or expanding welfare since that seems to be all the Democrats want to focus on, is giving out more free stuff at the expense of people who work. Or are you going to tell me the people who liked Bernie for his "Free College" proposal didn't exist? Or are you going to tell me that the Democrats suddenly aren't the party pushing for giving things to poor people at taxpayer expense? If that's the case, what side is the one fighting against the repeal of Obamacare, the bill basically requiring people to pay for the healthcare of others? Certainly isn't the Republicans or anyone who believes this taxation isn't justified. Mostly just Democrats and the unworking class who want free stuff they otherwise might have to work for.

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps at some point in their lives—a participation gap that echoes the deep partisan divide in the U.S. House of Representatives, which on Thursday produced a farm bill that did not include funding for the food stamp program.

Overall, a Pew Research Center survey conducted late last year found that about one-in-five Americans (18%) has participated in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. About a quarter (26%) lives in a household with a current or former food stamp recipient.

Of these, about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps.

The share of food stamp beneficiaries swells even further when respondents are asked if someone else living in their household had ever received food stamps. According to the survey, about three in ten Democrats (31%) and about half as many Republicans (17%) say they or someone in their household has benefitted from the food stamp program.

But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey.

Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

Minority women in particular are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women (39%) have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 31% of Hispanic women but 14% of Hispanic men received assistance.

Among whites, the gender-race gap is smaller. Still, white women are about twice as likely as white men to receive food stamp assistance (19% vs. 11%).

The survey also found that adults 65 and older are significantly less likely than other age groups to say they have received food stamps. For example, about 18% of adults aged 18 to 29 have benefitted from this entitlement program compared with 8% of those 65 and older. Those who have a high school diploma or less formal education are roughly three times more likely than college graduates to have been helped.

The farm bill passed by the House on Thursday, after a day of intense and sometimes hostile debate, was stripped of about $740 billion in funding for food stamps, setting up a confrontation with the Senate which has approved a very different version of the legislation.

The legislation represented the first time since 1973 that a House version failed to provide support for food stamps. The vote Thursday was 216-208, with all 196 Democrats present voting to oppose the measure. Twelve Republicans also voted against the bill.

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

"The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps."

The 22% was ONLY about FOOD STAMPS, not OTHER state/federal benefits. Both sides have just about as many who are a "drain on society" as you put it. The fact that you still want to play partisan politics with it.....

"Other that posting wrong information about Trump supporters, republicans and democrats, do you have any evidence or argument, other than "I said so.""

I defended everything I said. Aside from distorting my quotes, making strawmans of my arguments, outright ignoring corrections I've already made to you that I've had to restate in this post, ignoring facts of reality, and refusing to use basic reasoning and logic. Do YOU have anything to offer aside from the same old routine of misquote everything I said, post what you think I said (often incorrect and without context) then argue against that?

We only got three pages in and you already quit arguing with me on ideology because you can't win at that.

Who's quitting? I asked you for proof, and you're rambling on about starwman while using them. Ignoring corrections, by somehow claiming you were correcting my correction by ignoring everything past food stamps. Talk about redundancy... As for the "facts of reality" by selecting one statistic and playing partisan politics while refusing to look at the bigger picture, even when it's in the article you linked the image from. That's distortion of reality and has nothing to do with logic....

You posted ONE INFO-GRAPH out of context. This is proof? I posted a link and then posted the link you took the info-graph from so everyone could actually see the context you didn't want them to see. It's a topic about minimum wage where, you've provided nothing for your evidence as to why people don't deserve to live off the wages provided to them.

You ramble on about Democrats being a drain on society, and then reluctantly admit Repubs/Trump supporters are too (almost as many but lets ignore that).

That's all your argument has consisted of to claim that you deserve a livable wage, but someone else does not. You feel like you worker harder than they do and that you've earned it". Just be honest about it. Don't try to blame Democrats, Republicans, the over 50% of the nation (liberals, conserves, and independ.) that have used state/federal now or in the past. You JUST DON'T want people in these jobs, to make a LIVABLE wage period. That's your proof outside of ONE TOTAL LINK OUT OF CONTEXT. You can insult me, you can post misinformation, zero facts, and one info-graph out of context, but you just don't think they deserve it.

You just don't feel like they deserve it. No reason to hide behind the rest.

[VinylScratch]

More of yours???? That's how governments work, they take taxes and spend it on everyone. No Libertarian government exist because they all failed or had to change very quickly because it doesn't work.

Also it isn't that poor people are terrible with money it's that they barely scrap by. If they get a little extra money they buy new cloths or fix their broken car. It has nothing to do with being bad with money, but everything to do with having zero disposable income.

Yeah that's why. Not because Libertarians overwhelmingly prefer a severely limited government with basically no interference in personal lives. You know, basically the whole ideology. At the furthest extreme in Libertarian you have Anarchists. Like actual anarchists who just believe in no establishment period. Not the lawless hellion or whatever you want to call it depictions like something out of Mad Max.

Also it's mostly the poor are bad with money. There are three things you do in this country to never be stuck in poverty and I am a testament to that claim. You finish high school, you get a full time job, don't have a family before 21. It's pretty hard to get in poverty there. The problem is poor people think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires when in reality they're just bad with money. Even if they're not bad with money directly it's something that will factor in such as decision making. This is evidenced by the fact they did something to wind up in poverty in the first place.

The whole reason the housing market crashed in around 2007 was because government began to either encourage with incentives or outright force banks to give house loans to families who could never hope to pay them off and were basically prone to falling behind on payment. Then the houses got foreclosed, etc. Bottom line is poor people are very often bad with money.

[truckboattruck]

15 bucks an hour to get orders completely wrong?
fuck that, give me a robot

[Illana]

With low-skill jobs that's not as much an issue though.

Don't like having your hours cut? Quit. There's a stack of applications in the manager's office who would love to have a job and who could be trained enough to fully replace you in a day or 2.

raising the minimum wage reduces the pool of which you can choose from though

[-Nurot]

I don't know where you live, but it isn't earth.

Don't bother trying with this one. @VinylScratch has called everyone who disagrees with him a mongoloid while saying most democrats don't have jobs on the previous page.

Trash poster at best.

At worst just another clueless sycophant Trump supporter not living in reality. (This is probably more likely the tantrum level and zero facts).

They just FEEL like they deserve more than everyone else and probably spit on the maintenance men as they strut through the halls when they leave their cubicles. At the same time they barely make a livable wage themselves and cry about not affording healthcare........ It's telling really.

[melodramocracy]

15 bucks an hour to get orders completely wrong?
fuck that, give me a robot

People that make more money are mistake free?

[Grapemask]

This article is pretty much a blow by blow accounting of how the internet helps keep people in poverty and shoves the wealth gap wider.

We don't need to apply critical thinking to why this is the case; we don't even need to read the article. We have a snappy summary of "$15 minimum wage had X effect" that we can share with all of our friends, who will only think about it as deeply as the tagline before they share it with their friends.

No shit, the short term effects of a wage spike aren't rainbows and unicorns. No shit, businesses need pressure put on them to apply it fairly. Welcome to literally every wage increase since the dawn of minimum wage. Scratch that; welcome to every increase in the humane treatment of workers since Bob the Caveman learned that he could get Bill the Other Caveman to haul rocks for him, or whatever it was cavemen needed done.

[d00mGuArD]

I think not, getting people to work now is amazingly hard for "low skill" if anything shit jobs will be paying more.

Automation, keep dreaming.

Jobs that use hands in non repetitive way, will be in high demand because of automation. Because the next wave of automation, AI and robotics, are not good with their hands. Robots are the worst to handle or fix things if those things are not predetermined
AI will start replacing low skill desk jobs like secretaries and small business accounting, or repetitive desk jobs very soon.
AI companies are approaching daily the big corporations to do demos how their AI can replace their desk workforce, as we speak. Soon they will start approaching smaller business when AI gets cheaper

[Glorious Leader]

People that make more money are mistake free?

The GFC was what 10 years ago? People forget quickly.

[Zan15]

I understand the math you're trying to explain, but you are still trying to make the comparison to something different. You are trying to dynamically score the ratio for the change but using a static ratio of the past.

30% is still sufficient. Back then a minimum wage couldn't (and wasn't meant to) to provide a living (or livable) wage. If you make minimum wage and want then you have to make concessions such as living with a spouse/partner/roommate that also works. A full time minimum wage earner is above the federal poverty level - two minimum wage earners combined should be sufficient for a livable wage.

So millions of people whom work 40-50 hour a week, are not meant to make a living wage, even though they are producing 200% more per hour then they were back then? You want to maintain a ratio that is 70+ years old?




40 hour week at minimum wage in 1938 was $520 vs $1731 national average or about 30% of the national average.
40 hour week at minimum wage in 2016 was $15080 vs $53657 national average or about 28% of the national average.

in 1938 the average house price was House: $3,500 a new car was 800.00. So a ratio of 6.73 and 1.53
in 2017 $200,400 and $33,560. so a ratio of 13.3 and 2.22

So i guess we need to regulate these back down to 1938 ratio's since you want to do the same for min wage.

the average rent 1938 27 dollars a month (43 earned per month at min wage) Ratio .62
the average rent 2017 1150 (1256 earned per month) Ratio .92

Guess we need to regulate those rent prices back down to 1938 ratio.


Do you want to keep going? there is very little that has stayed at the same "ratio" they were in the 1930's. Thus the power of compounding inflation and wages not keeping up with growth.


i could tell you about education, like Harvard costing only 420 dollars a year back then vs 43-63k now. But But these min wage workers can just go back to school right. Nope even simple cost of community colleges have gone up and are a ratio way higher then 1938.

[ellieg]

Not sure if this has been brough up yet, but here

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min.../2015/home.htm

3.3% of workers are being paid minimum wage or less

About 7 percent of part-time workers (those who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid at or below the federal minimum wage, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers.

So barely anyone is working full time (as in trying to support themselves) and still on minimum wage. Also "about 2 percent of workers age 25 and older" are the ones on minimum wage.

Draw from that what you will. Yes those small percents equal a number of real people struggling, but its not as if half the population is.

[Elegiac]

Not sure if this has been brough up yet, but here

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min.../2015/home.htm

3.3% of workers are being paid minimum wage or less

About 7 percent of part-time workers (those who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid at or below the federal minimum wage, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers.

So barely anyone is working full time (as in trying to support themselves) and still on minimum wage. Also "about 2 percent of workers age 25 and older" are the ones on minimum wage.

Draw from that what you will. Yes those small percents equal a number of real people struggling, but its not as if half the population is.

Fun Fact: Minimum wage increases cascade upwards due to much higher relative bargaining power.

[ellieg]

Fun Fact: Minimum wage increases cascade upwards due to much higher relative bargaining power.

Very astute observation. Not sure what that has to do with the facts i posted.