Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Fugus]

Because, "Please, send us your unaccompanied children!" is such a better message?

I mean, what's the message supposed to be here? The administration is apparently trying to work on a way to improve applications without needing to make the long and dangerous journey, what else should they be doing right now?

If it were me, I would with Mexico’s approval, set up an intake center a few miles from the US-Mexico boarder and have people asking for asylum go there. Those who are relatively safe could stay around there while their claim is processed while those who are at risk will have a section of the facility setup to house them.

It would have an ample number of judges to see the cases in a timely fashion and the food and facilities would be up to at least hospital standards.

If your case is denied, you are sent back to your country of origin or allowed to remain in that area, if you are granted asylum then you are bussed into the US on official transport.

And if your case drags on for more than 4 months, you are automatically transported to a US based facility to continue your case while you wait in America and given a card that will allow you to safely seek employment and also guarantees you 12 months within the US so the employers don’t avoid you because you might not be there for too long. But you will not have any access to welfare as you will still be living and being fed at the facility and not require any of it. As for healthcare, while we are a shithole of a country in that regard but they will be treated same as an American who wonders into an emergency room.

[Machismo]

Considering that is upwards of double what economists estimated years ago and even more than what McDonalds own website shows if it were doubled , not likely.

But groceries going up 20% while the pay at the bottom going up 100% is still a net plus.

- - - Updated - - -

Oops, making the mistake of feeding you again on this subject you refuse to accept facts on again.

No more feeding your derailing of the thread. Later

I was simply going by the old costs based on the restaurant I used to manage.

It's not a net plus for all those people who already earn $15 an hour, it's a direct hit on them... which is why so many people in those areas oppose it.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they lose business if the majority of their customers now have more disposable income due to actually getting a real, living wage? The restaurant would raise its prices to cover the increase in costs, but still make more money.

This doesn't happening overnight, you know. The increases are gradual over time.

The majority wouldn't have more, only those whose pay went up with the increased minimum wage. Meanwhile, the spending power of millions of Americans would e diminished.

Or, if their wages also went up, that means costs would also go up even more... and the cycle continues.

A $15 increased minimum wage can easily lose Biden the Senate and House in 2022. But, if he works with the GOP, who are pushing the idea of an $11, then he gets to show he's a moderate, and the GOP doesn't get to use it against him.

[Edge-]

If it were me, I would with Mexico’s approval, set up an intake center a few miles from the US-Mexico boarder and have people asking for asylum go there. Those who are relatively safe could stay around there while their claim is processed while those who are at risk will have a section of the facility setup to house them.

Who's gonna pay for it? Staff it? What facilities would they use?

Because I know it's not intentional but that sounds a lot like the Remain in Mexico policy which...wasn't great at all.

It would have an ample number of judges to see the cases in a timely fashion and the food and facilities would be up to at least hospital standards.

They need more money from Congress and a helluva lot more judges for that. I'm not sure of the specifics, but my understanding is that growing that area of the judiciary is not super easy.

If your case is denied, you are sent back to your country of origin or allowed to remain in that area, if you are granted asylum then you are bussed into the US on official transport.

Mexico would need some huge incentives to keep those folks beyond their asylum processing period.

And if your case drags on for more than 4 months, you are automatically transported to a US based facility to continue your case while you wait in America and given a card that will allow you to safely seek employment and also guarantees you 12 months within the US so the employers don’t avoid you because you might not be there for too long.

Knowing what we know of the asylum process, this would apply to literally everyone in the system. That would ruffle more than a few feathers. Even if they don't have social safety net access.

[Themius]

Because, "Please, send us your unaccompanied children!" is such a better message?

I mean, what's the message supposed to be here? The administration is apparently trying to work on a way to improve applications without needing to make the long and dangerous journey, what else should they be doing right now?

Are you arguing that "the border is closed" is "good" messaging?

Better messaging here would actually be to say nothing over actively discourage people who are literally fleeing for their lives often enough.

What "message" do you think should have been put out?

Do you think saying "our border is closed" after years of Trump's bs with wanting to close the border is good messaginag because it isn't...

The message should have been perhaps.

"We are overwhelmed at the moment but we are doing everything in our power to ensure we can help those who come and move them through as quickly as possible, but there is a backlog which can cause a lot of delays."

not "border closed, don't come"

The latter doesn't leave room to even acknowledge the situation people are in that is causing them to flee in the first place.

Also why aren't we talking about the other issue of using Trump era bullshittery to turn away people who would usually qualify for asylum away immediately?

- - - Updated - - -

Knowing what we know of the asylum process, this would apply to literally everyone in the system. That would ruffle more than a few feathers. Even if they don't have social safety net access.

Latin American immigrants should get preferential treatment given the history between the states and LA.

[PhaelixWW]

The majority wouldn't have more, only those whose pay went up with the increased minimum wage. Meanwhile, the spending power of millions of Americans would e diminished.

Or, if their wages also went up, that means costs would also go up even more... and the cycle continues.

Middle income people would not have the same purchasing power, sure. No economic move can benefit all people at the same time. If that were a meaningful excuse for inaction, then nothing would ever be done.

And the people who have to "tighten their belts" are the people who are not already in poverty-level conditions. Their "suffering" is minuscule when balanced against the benefit to those in the low-income category.

As far as the restaurants is concerned, they'll see a net increase in customers if more people are brought out of poverty.

[Machismo]

Middle income people would not have the same purchasing power, sure. No economic move can benefit all people at the same time. If that were a meaningful excuse for inaction, then nothing would ever be done.

And the people who have to "tighten their belts" are the people who are not already in poverty-level conditions. Their "suffering" is minuscule when balanced against the benefit to those in the low-income category.

As far as the restaurants is concerned, they'll see a net increase in customers if more people are brought out of poverty.

It's an excuse for Biden's inaction.

It's an excuse for inaction for those senators, as well.

Their suffering is not miniscule, we're talking about millions and millions of working-class Americans, who tend to make $35-50k a year. They will be hit very hard by this. This also impacts small business owners, especially in the service and retail industry.

They won't see a net increase in customers, because their prices will have to be raised considerably. Mind you, large operations like McDonald's can mitigate those costs better than a single restaurant can.

This is a cause that will lose the Democrats their advantage in 2022, and they know it.

[Elegiac]

Their suffering is not miniscule, we're talking about millions and millions of working-class Americans, who tend to make $35-50k a year. They will be hit very hard by this. This also impacts small business owners, especially in the service and retail industry.

That's nice. This didn't happen in Seattle, though.

[PhaelixWW]

Their suffering is not miniscule, we're talking about millions and millions of working-class Americans, who tend to make $35-50k a year. They will be hit very hard by this.

No, they will not be hit "very hard" by this. What bullshit. I've literally lived this.

And the more than twice as many people make less than that will see drastic improvements.

This also impacts small business owners, especially in the service and retail industry.

...who will also have the opportunity to make more money because more people are spending more.

That's the thing. When more money goes into the hands of the rich, the economy stays pretty much the same. When more money goes into the hands of the poor, the economy improves as a whole.

They won't see a net increase in customers, because their prices will have to be raised considerably.

And yet their prices will increase less considerably than the income of their customers... so they'll tend to see more customers than before.

[Machismo]

That's nice. This didn't happen in Seattle, though.

Seattle is a wealthy city, and it did happen to some degree. Some businesses suffered, and many people simply opted to work less hours, instead of actually making more money.

There's also a huge difference in median income when compared to somewhere like West Virginia. You have a personal median income that is about $24k more than WV, so the change will be far more drastic there.

To put it in perspective, that would mean shifting the Seattle minimum wage to about...$29 an hour.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they will not be hit "very hard" by this. What bullshit. I've literally lived this.

And the more than twice as many people make less than that will see drastic improvements.



...who will also have the opportunity to make more money because more people are spending more.

That's the thing. When more money goes into the hands of the rich, the economy stays pretty much the same. When more money goes into the hands of the poor, the economy improves as a whole.



And yet their prices will increase less considerably than the income of their customers... so they'll tend to see more customers than before.

Yes, they will be hit, they will lose spending power, and not see an increase in salary like others are getting.

Those increased costs have to go somewhere. Employers will feel them, consumers will feel them.

As we saw in Seattle, many were simply working less hours, not actually working the same to increase their own income.

The problem is that not everyone's income will increase... which is the problem. It's awesome for the people whose salaries just went up. It sucks for all those above minimum wage whose income did not.

[Elegiac]

Seattle is a wealthy city, and it did happen to some degree. Some businesses suffered, and many people simply opted to work less hours, instead of actually making more money.

I see you're regurgitating that report which was debunked its own researchers, rofl.

But a year later, the team published another paper that complicated their findings. They looked at the same time period and same wage increase, but this time broke down the actual take-home pay of workers. They found that workers who were already employed at the low end of the wage scale in Seattle “enjoyed significantly more rapid hourly wage growth,” following wage increases in 2015 and 2016.

Those who were already working more hours before the wage increase saw “essentially all of the earnings increases,” while the workers who had fewer hours saw their hours go down, but wages go up enough so that their overall earnings didn’t really change. They theorized that a slowdown in new hiring for low-wage jobs could explain their earlier findings that overall payroll had gone down.

[Machismo]

I see you're regurgitating that report which was debunked by the University of Washington, rofl.

Here's the problem that people don't get... if this suddenly made everything better, then why not increase the minimum wage even more? If forcing people to earn more is the solution, then make them earn far more.

So, if this is the solution, then raise it to $100 an hour.

[Elegiac]

The problem is that not everyone's income will increase... which is the problem. It's awesome for the people whose salaries just went up. It sucks for all those above minimum wage whose income did not.

Sucks to be the people earning six figures who won't benefit from a minimum wage increase, I guess?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the problem that people don't get... if this suddenly made everything better, then why not increase the minimum wage even more?

Why not drink 16 gallons of water in a sitting if not being dehydrated is a good thing?

It's a stupid argument, sweaty.

[Edge-]

Are you arguing that "the border is closed" is "good" messaging?

While we're still in a pandemic, that we're thankfully starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel for? Yeah, actually.

Better messaging here would actually be to say nothing over actively discourage people who are literally fleeing for their lives often enough.

No, the message is that we're already overwhelmed here. This is an American official speaking for America, not for asylum seekers. There are times where it makes sense to pause or slow things down, like a pandemic. This isn't Trumpian, it's immigration policy.

What "message" do you think should have been put out?

I think they one they put out was fine.

Do you think saying "our border is closed" after years of Trump's bs with wanting to close the border is good messaginag because it isn't...

Again. Context. There's a pandemic and another massive surge of unaccompanied minors that they can't even keep up with right now. Saying, "COME ON UP!" isn't gonna help with that.

"We are overwhelmed at the moment but we are doing everything in our power to ensure we can help those who come and move them through as quickly as possible, but there is a backlog which can cause a lot of delays."

not "border closed, don't come"

Because you seem to assume that it's closed in perpetuity or something. While the common sense read is, "They're closed for now because of course, we're still in a pandemic."

Also why aren't we talking about the other issue of using Trump era bullshittery to turn away people who would usually qualify for asylum away immediately?

Because we're in a pandemic and officials are already overwhelmed...so I guess making the situation worse is...better?

[Fugus]

Who's gonna pay for it? Staff it? What facilities would they use?

Because I know it's not intentional but that sounds a lot like the Remain in Mexico policy which...wasn't great at all.



They need more money from Congress and a helluva lot more judges for that. I'm not sure of the specifics, but my understanding is that growing that area of the judiciary is not super easy.



Mexico would need some huge incentives to keep those folks beyond their asylum processing period.



Knowing what we know of the asylum process, this would apply to literally everyone in the system. That would ruffle more than a few feathers. Even if they don't have social safety net access.

As for who would be paying it, it would be the US at every step and staffing it.

As for Mexican incentives, I would say the US purchase the land like any business would and pay like that. Not in the sense of Annexing it or anything.

And have the benefits of taking the Trump crowds wind greatly in the process. They make cash and score political points while dealing with people who are already stuck there and making it harder for the cartels to mess with that group.

[Machismo]

Sucks to be the people earning six figures who won't benefit from a minimum wage increase, I guess?

- - - Updated - - -



Why not drink 16 gallons of water in a sitting if not being dehydrated is a good thing?

It's a stupid argument, sweaty.

And there it is... hatred for people earning more.

You guys are nothing, if not predictable.

Your entire argument is that increasing the minimum wage is beneficial. SO, it either continues to be beneficial forever, or it stops being beneficial at some point. Since you clearly don't want to raise it forever, then you must have a point where it no longer becomes beneficial. Where is that point? And how do you know that?

If you cannot answer those questions, then the argument stands, and you should want to raise it to 4100 an hour, or even more.

I'll wait.

[Elegiac]

Again, replace "increasing the minimum wage" with "drinking water" and you'll see why this is a silly argument:

Your entire argument is that drinking water is beneficial. SO, it either continues to be beneficial forever, or it stops being beneficial at some point. Since you clearly don't want to drink endless amounts of water, then you must have a point where it no longer becomes beneficial. Where is that point? And how do you know that?

If you cannot answer those questions, then the argument stands.

Same bullshit with climate change deniers.

[Fugus]

@Machismo

According to McDonald’s own website last I checked, their labor accounted for 17.5% of their operating costs.

Now, MATHEMATICALLY, show us how doubling their minimum wage doubles their prices...

[Machismo]

Again, replace "increasing the minimum wage" with "drinking water" and you'll see why this is a silly argument:

So, at what point does it stop being beneficial to raise the minimum wage?

Still waiting.

- - - Updated - - -

@Machismo

According to McDonald’s own website last I checked, their labor accounted for 17.5% of their operating costs.

Now, MATHEMATICALLY, show us how doubling their minimum wage doubles their prices...

Where did I say it would double their prices?

As I pointed out, McDonald's can absorb costs far better than small businesses, because they have the scale and flexibility that others do not.

At that rate, it would raise their costs by 8-9%, based on that very simple interpretation. Now, for a business whose payroll costs were 35%... that puts it at 18-19% increase.

[Elegiac]

So, at what point does it stop being beneficial to raise the minimum wage?

No idea, but it's not particularly relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, for a business whose payroll costs were 35%... that puts it at 18-19% increase.

Why should the working class have to subsidise shitty business models that can't sustain a wage hike? Lul.

Sounds like coercion to me.

[Machismo]

No idea, but it's not particularly relevant.

It's absolutely relevant. if you are going to say it's beneficial, and you are the one who wants to fucking force it, then you sure as shit better to be able to show your work.

The burden falls on those who wish to force such change.