Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[Forogil]

You said

"It matters to Food Town if the money is spent in Food Town or not, and "the poor" does not necessarily spend extra money on food."

I guess that is your way of apologizing for your misunderstanding when going from:

I'm a bit unsure how you think that 84% of the money spent going towards non-food disproves my statement that people don't necessarily spend extra money on food.

to:

Never said 84% of the money spent on food. You are misunderstanding the quoted results of the census and study.

The fact remain that most of the money wasn't spent on food, in contrast to simple expectations.

[BeepBoo]

If someone falls and breaks their leg, and is lying there screaming and begging for help, I'm negatively judging every single person who walks by and ignores them, yes. They're all awful, terrible people. Who the hell would do that?

That's fine. I would as well, but the distinction between "I just hate someone or how they act" and "I think laws should be written to mandate someone act in a particular way" is a huge one of great importance to me. In addition, the delineation between what is factual and opinion is also of great importance.

The one time I witnessed a major car accident on the highway, I was 2nd on the scene to help the woman who'd crashed. And I was only second because my friend was with me, and he jumped before I'd gotten the car to a full stop. Within minutes, there were at least 10 people all helping out. What kind of society do you live in?

I've literally done the exact same thing 5 times in my life. I've performed CPR; administered first aid; I've done all the "good Samaritan" shit. I've also walked by beggars and homeless people and not batted an eye. I live in reality, where the reasons people do things and what drives them to do those things is as fickle as the wind and as varied as the colors of the universe.

[Katchii]

Plenty of people die every day. Deaths that could have been prevented by just the proper amount of support are no different to me. I'm not willing, nor able to bare all those burdens, and I want to be able to choose, so I necessarily have to extend those rights to everyone else or I'll be a hypocrite, which is on my top 3 list of "worst things a human can do."

Being a hypocrite is top 3, but being completely indifferent to the suffering of others to the point that you would willingly and actively choose to just let someone die doesn't even make the list. So, you have a moral compass...it seems to be WAY out of calibration.

I've had this discussion with endus like 10 times already and I'm not getting into it again. We disagree on the innate value of human life, we disagree on what "tax" is, what is acceptable "tax", and what "taxes" should be used for. No point in having it again.

Fair enough. In that case, your life is just as worthless as the people you would simply let die.

Letting something die is different from going out, finding them, and killing them.

While true, the latter is in many cases, MUCH worse than the former.

[BeepBoo]

So, you have a moral compass...it seems to be WAY out of calibration.

I simply acknowledge I'm not a completely self-sacrificing kind of person and that I value my own life and comfort over others to a point where there are actually limits on what I would go out of my way to do for someone else. If I was completely self sacrificing, I'd be trying harder at my job to earn more, I wouldn't drive a sports car, and I'd barely leave enough money for myself to subsist off of while pumping the rest of it out into the best, most impactful humanitarian orgs I agreed with. I don't and will not ever do that, despite all those poor oppressed chinese, africans, US citizens, etc.

Fair enough. In that case, your life is just as worthless as the people you would simply let die.

Has the potential to be, yes. In the grand scheme of things as far as the universe is concerned? Also yes. As far as society is currently concerned? Not in the least. But, knowing that it could turn to shit any minute and knowing my existence is ultimately inconsequential is what allows me to live how I do, which is to be as happy as possible while I'm alive.

While true, the latter is in many cases, MUCH worse than the former.

Agreed. Hence my need for distinction. Also, just to clarify, we're both saying people hunting people down is worse than people ignoring someone's existence, yes?

[Katchii]

I simply acknowledge I'm not a completely self-sacrificing kind of person and that I value my own life and comfort over others to a point where there are actually limits on what I would go out of my way to do for someone else. If I was completely self sacrificing, I'd be trying harder at my job to earn more, I wouldn't drive a sports car, and I'd barely leave enough money for myself to subsist off of while pumping the rest of it out into the best, most impactful humanitarian orgs I agreed with. I don't and will not ever do that, despite all those poor oppressed chinese, africans, US citizens, etc.

What about being willing to have your taxes increased to help pay for healthcare for folks who can't afford it themselves or to possibly help in increasing the federal minimum wage to a number that people can actually live off of? Not live comfortably, but at least not have to wonder if they have to choose between paying for groceries or paying rent.

I don't think anyone is advocating that you should or need to try and help everyone, everywhere, all the time. That's unrealistic.

Has the potential to be, yes. In the grand scheme of things as far as the universe is concerned? Also yes. As far as society is currently concerned? Not in the least. But, knowing that it could turn to shit any minute and knowing my existence is ultimately inconsequential is what allows me to live how I do, which is to be as happy as possible while I'm alive.

And no one is begrudging you that ability to be as happy as you can be. The problem lies in how much you seem to put your happiness above the happiness and livelihood of others and encourage it to even be at the expense of others. Why does it have to be me vs them? Why can't it be both? Why do you seem against the idea of helping out a little bit to help a LOT of other people be able to make a living?

Agreed. Hence my need for distinction. Also, just to clarify, we're both saying people hunting people down is worse than people ignoring someone's existence, yes?

It honestly depends. Neither one is good, let's get that out of the way first. But depending on the situation I'd say that someone actively and willfully ignoring and almost encouraging the suffering and death of others while doing nothing about it is more heartless and "evil" than someone who actively and in a fit of rage or passion kills someone.

One is a complete lack or disregard of emotions (which IMO is worse), whereas the other is typically an overly zealous and damaging use of them as many murders are done in fits of rage or passion, though admittedly there are some that are cold and calculated, but I'm calling those the exception and not the rule.

[BeepBoo]

What about

Too much. A perpetual safety net invalidates society's ability to tell someone they're worthless. Being worthless to society, especially if you need to depend on said society, should effectively be a death sentence or have a timer unless you can convince individuals to cover your @$$, acutely.

Why does it have to be me vs them? Why can't it be both?

I'm very materialistic. I live far in excess of what is needed and I hate the idea of living closer to what is simply "needed" just to get others up to par. Your world looks a lot like europe. I couldn't have what I have now in europe. It's stupid expensive. Fuck those places. Give me a bigger house, more wasteful car, a nice array of guns and ammo, the ability to buy throwaway clothing from a store, etc. Keep the social safety net that I'll likely never need out of my pocket. "But you might someday" yeah, well, I'm willing to take that risk. I have other forms of safety net that don't involve the kindess of peoples' hearts or "society" covering for me even if shit does go bad.

So, it is a me vs them situation. The the narrower the bands on potential income ranges, the comparatively higher value you have to have in order to get one where the gap between low and high is large.

Why do you seem against the idea of helping out a little bit to help a LOT of other people be able to make a living?

Because I don't know them or care about them and if they're having that hard of a time somewhere, clearly there's something wrong with them. Unlucky, unskilled, un-something. I have no vested interest in seeing them live. Helping people out isn't what makes me happiest, or even happy. It gives me mild joy. Like a 1 on a scale of -10 to 10. Barely past neutral. The things that give me the most happiness? Beating someone at something. Adrenaline filled pursuits like base jumping. High octane racing, etc. A whole lot of frivolous shit that I'm enabled to enjoy and buy in higher quantities because I'm not forced to cough more of it up in the form of helping others out.

It honestly depends. Neither one is good, let's get that out of the way first. But depending on the situation I'd say that someone actively and willfully ignoring and almost encouraging the suffering and death of others while doing nothing about it is more heartless and "evil" than someone who actively and in a fit of rage or passion kills someone.

One is a complete lack or disregard of emotions (which IMO is worse), whereas the other is typically an overly zealous and damaging use of them as many murders are done in fits of rage or passion, though admittedly there are some that are cold and calculated, but I'm calling those the exception and not the rule.

Yeah, that's what I expected when it seemed like you agreed with me. It sounds to me like you were intending to say "the former" when you said "the latter".

Actively seeking to harm someone else is in an entirely different universe of bad versus just being apathetic towards someone's existence. In one case (apathy) if the person is capable of living on their own, they get to. In the other (hunting), even if the person is capable of living on their own, you hunt them down out of hate and off them regardless of their ability to self-sustain.
[Infraction]

[NED funded]

So do people that say stuff like this support welfare???

Like I wont argue against raises in minimum wages but the whole living wage excludes welfare benefits right???

[Themius]

You realize that, if that job somewhere fancy ends up making you broke still, it's probably not worth it... right? I digress. It's up to someone to decide what they're willing to accept within the context of their own private life. If you pay, you agree to the terms. I don't care if you feel begrudgingly about a deal after it happens or feel like you got reamed. You pay, you accept.

Many "low cost" living areas suffer from lack of jobs... and are low cost because people don't want to live there.

Because it is entirely feasible for me to see someone who isn't capable of being net-zero or positive in terms of what they give back to society in order to afford that lifestyle.

Who gives a fuck what you think? I care about facts, data, WHAT ECONOMIC RESEARCHERS SAY Why is the right so anti-data? anti-science? anti-facts? Can you please come back when you decide to join reality...

Say it takes 50k for a person to "survive" a year, on average. Ignore different places needing more or less for simplicity. It's entirely likely to me that someone would be "worth" less than 50k/year value to society. Either they're incapable, sick, or just don't want to work that much, etc. Regardless, that 50k value is still a total that needs to be met. So where does it come from? It has to come from somewhere. Likely in your ideal world it comes from the backs of those who are more capable or valuable (for whatever reason). I hate that fundamentally. Just because some other fuck decided to have you doesn't mean I agreed or care about you in any way. I likely wouldn't even notice if you suddenly were gone the next day. Stop trying to force me to acknowledge your existence as something it's not to me.

This folks is what dystopian future movies are made of.

I'm literally indifferent to poverty. Crime? No, but since you admit poverty leads to more crime out of desperation, you more strictly monitor those places and act swifter when they step out of line, since it's statistically more likely to happen there.

What the fuck type of foolishness is this? hey so innocent people are suffering from crimes due to poverty. I know less just swiftly arrest everyone there! That'll totally help, and totally won't starve the community of work force and people to take care of children and what not and it will break up households totally no problems!

I won't bother debating you on the enigmatic definition of "functioning society" but I will say I think society could function just fine even if it let its weaker people die out as often as they would naturally without government interference.

Stop pedaling this lie. It does not. It improves the minimum and nothing more; often times at increasingly higher costs the farther up away from the bottom you get. What is "better" for me is me being as competitive as possible and getting the full benefit of my privileges, blessings, luck, etc.

Either you're lying or just ignorant of the studies on this. But every study, and every real world example of increases leads to increases in prices THAT NEVER OUTPACES THE INCREASE OF WAGES So you're the one peddling lines honey. WAGE INCREASES ALWAYS OUTPACE INCREASE OF GOODS. All it does lead to is more people being able to buy stuff which in turn helps businesses. Get a clue about what you're talking about before trying to take part in this.

Let me spin it like this: I don't care about whatever society immediately has at it's disposal. I don't care what improvements it makes. I could be just as happy with my relative standings I have now in the middle ages as I could 300 years from now with all the new fancy tech that era would have. What matters to me is feeling like I'm free to pursue the most benefit to myself without being inhibited by the burdens of others.

So higher wages that directly rages the wages of everyone somehow hinders you? Get real, you're not rich, you're not a multi millionaire or billionaire, so "temporary embarrassed millionaire status" can say goodbye.

You keep spinning this false dichotomy of "if you're not willing to help those below you, you're HURTING THEM!" No. Some fuck that gets bit by a snake who I refuse to help isn't being killed or hurt by me. He's a victim of the snake. Me being indifferent might aid the snake's goal of killing him, but I'm not at fault. Inb4 "but there is such a thing as social contract, negligence, compulsion to help" no there isn't just because some small group of humanity wants to play like that's how that works doesn't change the actual factual state of what is at fault.

So much angst, how old are you?

- - - Updated - - -

You are arguing with a bunch of commies that hate meritocracy and try to pretend its "all about the poor". In reality its only their personal wet dream of living a carefree life without being a productive member of society.

You realise that the people like me, with those views. are often the people with higher educations that make more money than your right wing people.

It's literally a bunch of more likely to be well off people telling the people who are more likely to be less educated and more likely to be poor... that social nets to help everyone benefits society. And then that side with the more likely to be less educated, and poorer people bitch to the higher educated, well off people. That they just want to live carefree from taxes... TAXES THAT THEY PAY

Remind me... which are the richest states, and what states are donor states again? For all this talk about lazy people "taking" it's republicans who do the most fucking taking.

[BeepBoo]

Many "low cost" living areas suffer from lack of jobs... and are low cost because people don't want to live there.

Lack of particular types of jobs and attractions, yes. Also, duh they're low cost because people don't want to live there. If you want to live somewhere that has limited housing and the rest of the world ALSO wants to live there, then accept the fact that you're going to have to make huge sacrifice and you might not be a good fit if you're not high enough up the chain to actually justify living there given the demand.

Who gives a fuck what you think? I care about facts, data, WHAT ECONOMIC RESEARCHERS SAY Why is the right so anti-data? anti-science? anti-facts? Can you please come back when you decide to join reality...

Oh, yes, the vegetable is totally worth the resources they take to stay alive. They're definitely generating resources equal to what they're consuming in some way/shape/or form. /s

This folks is what dystopian future movies are made of.

cute.

What the fuck type of foolishness is this? hey so innocent people are suffering from crimes due to poverty. I know less just swiftly arrest everyone there! That'll totally help, and totally won't starve the community of work force and people to take care of children and what not and it will break up households totally no problems!

The problem is we don't need that work force. We have an over supply of people in the low-skilled labor category. Ergo, if they go away, they won't be depriving the community of anything, unless they're parents. If they're parents who are poor, I'd say they're idiots anyways. Poor people shouldn't have kids if they actually cared about the future of the kid they'd have. You like stats right? What are the stats for how a poor kid turns out in the future vs a normal kid, or even an advantaged kid?

Either you're lying or just ignorant of the studies on this. But every study, and every real world example of increases leads to increases in prices THAT NEVER OUTPACES THE INCREASE OF WAGES So you're the one peddling lines honey. WAGE INCREASES ALWAYS OUTPACE INCREASE OF GOODS.

If that were true in the long term and forced wage hikes did what they were supposed to do, we wouldn't need one every 10/20 years, because these people would be valuable enough to justify keeping pace with inflation. It wouldn't just creep up and eclipse it again.

All it does lead to is more people being able to buy stuff which in turn helps businesses. Get a clue about what you're talking about before trying to take part in this.

You're supposing I care about economic prosperity of society as a whole or even at all in your assumptions. I don't really care about what's "better" in however you think about it.

So higher wages that directly rages the wages of everyone somehow hinders you? Get real, you're not rich, you're not a multi millionaire or billionaire, so "temporary embarrassed millionaire status" can say goodbye.

Yes. Money disparity does affect value of money.

If I have 10 dollars and someone has 0 dollars, then all of a sudden I have 15 dollars and they have 5, I now am comparatively worse than I was before, economically. I can't use my fat wad of cash to out-compete them.

So much angst, how old are you?

lol. angst.

You realise that the people like me, with those views. are often the people with higher educations that make more money than your right wing people.

You realize I don't care about that type of stuff and it isn't indicative one way or another of intelligence in-and-of-itself? There are plenty of very capable doctors who are also transphobes that refuse to operate or take trans patients (not that I agree with that practice or their views). "There are plenty of smart people in the upper-middle class who have my views!"

Cool. Upper middle is nothing. I have plenty of doctorate grads who make dick all because they're PhDs in dumb fucking degree areas. Yet they're "hurr durr more educated" than I am with my bachelors in CS making double what they did with 1/10th the degree cost. Those people aren't smarter. They're fucking idiots who wasted money pursuing something worthless.

It's literally a bunch of more likely to be well off people telling the people who are more likely to be less educated and more likely to be poor... that social nets to help everyone benefits society.

And then that side with the more likely to be less educated, and poorer people bitch to the higher educated, well off people. That they just want to live carefree from taxes... TAXES THAT THEY PAY

Cool. That's not what's happening here. And if you want to do it, just go pay more to the appropriate charities. The money you need to fund all these programs would come from upper middle, upper, and super affluent people (as opposed to the poor people who are apparently opposed to it) anyways. If all of the rich people want to give, why do you need to have laws for it? :^)

I live in one of the wealthiest, smartest small cities in the country. We have the highest number of medical doctors per capita of any other city IN THE WORLD. Guess whose sign I see more of in all the richie rich neighborhoods?

Remind me... which are the richest states, and what states are donor states again? For all this talk about lazy people "taking" it's republicans who do the most fucking taking.

Am I lazy? Do I fall into a red state? Am I taking taxes and using more than I put in? Did I say anything about party lines at all? Am I republican? Do I vote republican? Then why the fuck is this relevant at all. Stop bringing up irrelevant info and trying to cram me into some type of mold you've seemingly built for me in your head.

Also, you seem to constantly forget the age-old-saying of "correlation does not imply causation" in basically every statistical reference you make.

In addition, if someone is getting help and they tell you they don't fucking want it, even if you *think* you know what's good for them, fuck off and stop helping.

[Themius]

random points with magically no

It's literally a bunch of more likely to be well off people telling the people who are more likely to be less educated and more likely to be poor... that social nets to help everyone benefits society.

Which entirely guts the argument that the "left" is just trying to steal money and live off the government... when in fact that's more common of the right...

I live in one of the wealthiest, smartest small cities in the country. We have the highest number of medical doctors per capita of any other city IN THE WORLD. Guess whose sign I see more of in all the richie rich neighborhoods?

Rich white people I take it. What small city you in? And do you think your small fucking city is representative of idk... AMERICA

In addition, if someone is getting help and they tell you they don't fucking want it, even if you *think* you know what's good for them, fuck off and stop helping.

Except that's not what happens... instead right wing take things and then pretend they didn't. Like the guy who literally on the news wants to cut entitlements while saying he survived via food stamps after he lost his job which he was thankful for... but he was "special" everyone else though fuck them, then food stamps are bad. Typical right wing person.

If I have 10 dollars and someone has 0 dollars, then all of a sudden I have 15 dollars and they have 5, I now am comparatively worse than I was before, economically. I can't use my fat wad of cash to out-compete them.

The fuck is this analogy?

It is more like You have 10 dollars, someone has 0 dollars, and some 100 people with combined wealth of $800,000,000,000 gives them 15 and you 5.

Like do you want to operate like we live on the same planet so your arguments can make a tiny tiny minuscule bit of sense?

Also note how you default to. "but then i can't use my money to oppress them! And that's not fair"

[BeepBoo]

Which entirely guts the argument that the "left" is just trying to steal money and live off the government... when in fact that's more common of the right...

I'm just gonna stop arguing with you. You care about "society as a whole" which innately includes everyone who does or will exist in that society. I care about my own personal relative worth to other people more than the level of success of that society itself. And, oh look! I live in the wealthiest country in the world by a landslide. It's really easy to live here if you're an actually capable person with statistically significant abilities. You can get a better life here than anywhere else in the world for those efforts. We reward winners more than we care about losers. Seems fine to me.

[Themius]

I'm just gonna stop arguing with you. You care about "society as a whole" which innately includes everyone who does or will exist in that society. I care about my own personal relative worth to other people more than the level of success of that society itself. And, oh look! I live in the wealthiest country in the world by a landslide. It's really easy to live here if you're an actually capable person with statistically significant abilities. You can get a better life here than anywhere else in the world for those efforts. We reward winners more than we care about losers. Seems fine to me.

Living in the wealthy country means nothing when half the country lives like they're in a third world country.

[BeepBoo]

Living in the wealthy country means nothing when half the country lives like they're in a third world country.

Sure does, especially if the other half lives better than their relative counterparts in other countries do. You just don't like what it means.

[Themius]

Sure does, especially if the other half lives better than their relative counterparts in other countries do. You just don't like what it means.

You have some weird fetish for suffering people.

[Captain N]

You have some weird fetish for suffering people.

Dude...SuperTony. That's all you need to know.

[Santti]

Dude...SuperTony. That's all you need to know.

Supertony? Didn't he get banned for threatening to kill someone, or something like that?

[Captain N]

Supertony? Didn't he get banned for threatening to kill someone, or something like that?

Among other things.

[Santti]

Among other things.

Sigh, just what we need around here.

[Themius]

Dude...SuperTony. That's all you need to know.

Oh! Thank you.

Makes sense that a person making death threats gets off on peoples suffering.

[Zan15]

I'm just gonna stop arguing with you. You care about "society as a whole" which innately includes everyone who does or will exist in that society. I care about my own personal relative worth to other people more than the level of success of that society itself. And, oh look! I live in the wealthiest country in the world by a landslide. It's really easy to live here if you're an actually capable person with statistically significant abilities. You can get a better life here than anywhere else in the world for those efforts. We reward winners more than we care about losers. Seems fine to me.

i.e "if you win society and genetic lottery, then you are all set."