The Machismo discussion from the Biden/Haris thread so he can stop derailing it.

[Machismo]

At this point, I just think he sees governing and policy as some sort of all-or-nothing kind of deal. There is no nuance, no compromises. It's either 0%, or 100%. Black or white.

My issue is with people pulling numbers out of magic hats (like $15 an hour), and trying to shove them down people's throats.

You'll notice that I previously stated Biden would be far better off working with the GOP, who are recommending an $11 minimum wage.

[Yadryonych]

A fair point unless the min wage was the same. Then the one meeting the demands of the job may be able to find a less demanding job for the same pay...or so the person could say to his/her employer.

So you agree with what I said after going a full circle and coming to this conclusion

[Machismo]

A point you can't seem to argue against.

Not one person has shown me why it should be exactly $15 an hour.

Not. One. Person.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Maybe this should be renamed by the mods to minimum wage discussion?

Also, minimum wage should be a wage that allows one person to live with all of the essentials in the modern day society in which they exist. It's almost impossible to get by without a cell phone these days but you don't need an expensive one, a walmart cheap samsung with a cheap data plan is fine. Same with home internet, utilities, rent, food, etc.

Why not $100? Because $15 an hour would give a person working 40 hours a week roughly enough money to have both the essentials they need to live, plus a bit left over to invest either in stocks, other investments, their own educaiton/training, or to blow how they see fit.

That's the thing about mixed market economics that combines both aspects of capitalism and socialism and a bit of communism - it takes all of the aspects from each to apply to a society in which everyone can get by fairly. We still want a tiered pay system to exist, we don't want everyone making the exact same amount of money. People should still have the ability to get rich, but those who aren't should be able to work 40 hours a week and get by. The "Why not just pay $100/hr?!" is a dumb strawman always brought up because we're still trying to abide by a tiered system of wealth where those who do the minimum get by and those who do more get more.

Also, yes, someone working the grill at a fast food joint could make maybe 20 burgers an hour (asspull number) but with how technology has improved these days, most fast food joints pump out far more these days. Food is just far faster and easier to make than it ever has been, meaning the company makes more sales, meaning they make even more money. Companies like McD's and Burger King report record profits every single year, but the only people who see that improvement in record profits are the shareholders and executives. Why do the people ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK ON THE GROUND not get to reap at least a little bit of that?





Here's a question for "Libertarianism". If there was zero minimum wage, what's to stop companies from paying people a quarter per hour? The answer you might come up with is "Well people just won't work for a quarter an hour, they'll expect more money to work." And yet history has shown us (the US industrial revolution, among a multitude of other examples) that people will work for pennies even if just to survive from day to day. Zero minimum wage and no unionization would take us back to the era before minimum wage was a thing, where workers were exploited heavily and basically slaves to their company, only paid just barely enough for a little bread each day. Or even worse, paid in company credits which they could only spend at the company store. THAT is the world of zero minimum wage. The Libertarian dream world of limited laws, where people negotiate fair wages for themselves, doesn't exist. It cannot exist. It will never exist. All we have to work with is the framework of laws in which we exist, and the best way to tackle poverty atm is to raise the minimum wage. Even $12/hr would be a good place to be, far better than the shit $7.25/hr.

[Shadowferal]

So you agree with what I said after going a full circle and coming to this conclusion

If an employer wants someone qualified then he needs to know he has to pay for it. If he wants a minimum wage worker...he will get what he deserves.

- - - Updated - - -

Not one person has shown me why it should be exactly $15 an hour. Not. One. Person.

And you convinced..Not. One. Person.

[beanman12345]

libertarians are so funny, be careful of them bears.

[Machismo]

Maybe this should be renamed by the mods to minimum wage discussion?

Also, minimum wage should be a wage that allows one person to live with all of the essentials in the modern day society in which they exist. It's almost impossible to get by without a cell phone these days but you don't need an expensive one, a walmart cheap samsung with a cheap data plan is fine. Same with home internet, utilities, rent, food, etc.

Why not $100? Because $15 an hour would give a person working 40 hours a week roughly enough money to have both the essentials they need to live, plus a bit left over to invest either in stocks, other investments, their own educaiton/training, or to blow how they see fit.

That's the thing about mixed market economics that combines both aspects of capitalism and socialism and a bit of communism - it takes all of the aspects from each to apply to a society in which everyone can get by fairly. We still want a tiered pay system to exist, we don't want everyone making the exact same amount of money. People should still have the ability to get rich, but those who aren't should be able to work 40 hours a week and get by. The "Why not just pay $100/hr?!" is a dumb strawman always brought up because we're still trying to abide by a tiered system of wealth where those who do the minimum get by and those who do more get more.

Also, yes, someone working the grill at a fast food joint could make maybe 20 burgers an hour (asspull number) but with how technology has improved these days, most fast food joints pump out far more these days. Food is just far faster and easier to make than it ever has been, meaning the company makes more sales, meaning they make even more money. Companies like McD's and Burger King report record profits every single year, but the only people who see that improvement in record profits are the shareholders and executives. Why do the people ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK ON THE GROUND not get to reap at least a little bit of that?





Here's a question for "Libertarianism". If there was zero minimum wage, what's to stop companies from paying people a quarter per hour? The answer you might come up with is "Well people just won't work for a quarter an hour, they'll expect more money to work." And yet history has shown us (the US industrial revolution, among a multitude of other examples) that people will work for pennies even if just to survive from day to day. Zero minimum wage and no unionization would take us back to the era before minimum wage was a thing, where workers were exploited heavily and basically slaves to their company, only paid just barely enough for a little bread each day. Or even worse, paid in company credits which they could only spend at the company store. THAT is the world of zero minimum wage. The Libertarian dream world of limited laws, where people negotiate fair wages for themselves, doesn't exist. It cannot exist. It will never exist. All we have to work with is the framework of laws in which we exist, and the best way to tackle poverty atm is to raise the minimum wage. Even $12/hr would be a good place to be, far better than the shit $7.25/hr.

I think the problem with a blanket minimum wage, is that such a cost of living isn't the same everywhere... not even close.

There are countries who do have no minimum wage, and they do just fine. The thing to stop them is the employees refusing to work fo those wages, and consumers refusing to spend money at any business that pays their employees such low wages.

Unions are a good thing, and should be used... both as employees, and as consumers.

[Machismo]

If an employer wants someone qualified then he needs to know he has to pay for it. If he wants a minimum wage worker...he will get what he deserves.

- - - Updated - - -

And you convinced..Not. One. Person.

Like I said, guys like Manchin have no reason to support such an arbitrary number. The burden is on the people trying to get him to vote for it.

Manchin and a few others are convinced, which is why it's currently dead.

- - - Updated - - -

libertarians are so funny, be careful of them bears.

This isn't about libertarianism.

[beanman12345]

This isn't about libertarianism.

Never it was, and kinda proves my point.

[Zan15]

Bullshit, it was never close to $15 an hour.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ear/index.html

Here's a thought, outlaw assault.

Ok riddle me this, maybe i have this wrong???

$3.35 was the min wage in 1982

The Base they use for inflation is CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)

1982 = 100 set as the baseline by the BLS

the CPI-U us now 263.161

So if 3.35 is the base of 100, 263.16 is 2.632 times greater

so 3.35 x 2.632 = $8.82


If we go back to 1947 when the CPI-u started it would be $4.90 an hour min wage based on using the 1947 data as baseline vs today


LOL, you want to use this ridiculous CPI-u as a way to track inflation relative to wages???

So you would support a reduction of min wage to $4.90??


The measurement of inflation has always been under done by multiples almost every year. Its a rediclous process using that as the only baseline for determining where min wage should be set

unless you are stupid and think people can live off $10,192 a year unless they were living under a bridge.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not one person has shown me why it should be exactly $15 an hour.

Not. One. Person.

The cost of living has increased since 1968, when the minimum wage value was just under $12/hr. And I'm not talking about the overall cost of living. Adjusted for inflation, cost of living has gone up dramatically. Neither I nor anyone else can give you a giant mathematical breakdown of why $15/hr is necessary. Wages in general are generally arbitrary numbers. Why should you make the money you currently make? Could you give me a detailed breakdown of why you deserve whatever your salary is, the exact value you contribute to your company, how much money you make them, both directly and indirectly? Could you give me a graph of people working in your same field with the same qualifications and experience?

Yeah, you're not going to be able to pull that out of your ass without a ton of work that's completely unnecessary solely for the purpose of winning an internet argument.

Effectively all you're doing is sea lioning here. You're demanding people provide you with concrete proof of something that is an abstract concept.

The reason most people come by $15/hr is that in many regions, people who make $15/hr or around there abouts tend to make ends meet and have a little left over in the end for investment or free spending. So my reason "why" it should be $15/hr is that people need to make a basic living plus have a little bit on the side to either improve their fortunes or spend away as they see fit. The essential expenses are something people are always going to spend on, food, housing, etc, but overall people would be able to afford more nutritious food for themselves which would create more demand for food production. The extra money on the side would also create additional demand so that other companies that deal in non necessary living expenses would experience increased demand and business. It would stimulate the economy and create more fluidity of capital, which is a desired effect. Failing economies happen when money stagnates, when capital fluidity stops.

[Zan15]

Once again, why should I be paid more for flipping the same burger that I've been flipping for 40 years, just because a guy in Wyoming manages to drastically increase productivity in his natural gas job?

That's the problem with a blanket increase based on productivity.

for the same reason why burgers do not cost 29 cents anymore.

[Machismo]

I’ve shown you $15 is too low for even rural areas based on cost of living. Why do you want people to make slave wages and have to have multiple jobs?

I had to go back, because you originally posted no data, then added some later.

From what you provided, it didn't give any actual hard numbers for a single person. It was a history on the CPI.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/ar...experience.htm

[Shadowferal]

Like I said, guys like Manchin have no reason to support such an arbitrary number. The burden is on the people trying to get him to vote for it.
Manchin and a few others are convinced, which is why it's currently dead.

Manchin is playing politics. He wants something for his vote. Personally I just as soon find 2 votes from the GOP.

This isn't about libertarianism.

It's part of the libertarian mantra. The likes of Rand Paul and Trump supporters do agree with you.

[PhaelixWW]

People aren't telling me why, they are running away from it. $15 is arbitrary, so let's use another arbitrary number.

But $15 is not arbitrary. You keep claiming that it is, but you're mistaken.

According to MIT, for example, a living wage in 2020 was $16.54/hr.

[Machismo]

for the same reason why burgers do not cost 29 cents anymore.

Nope, and based on inflation, the minimum wage was never close to $15 an hour. If we're talking about the increased cost of a burger, then the minimum wage was highest in the late 1960's, but never close to $15 an hour.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think the problem with a blanket minimum wage, is that such a cost of living isn't the same everywhere... not even close.

There are countries who do have no minimum wage, and they do just fine. The thing to stop them is the employees refusing to work fo those wages, and consumers refusing to spend money at any business that pays their employees such low wages.

Unions are a good thing, and should be used... both as employees, and as consumers.

The only reason these countries do just fine is their unions are so strong they may as well have a set minimum wage. The US unions have all but been busted apart by conservatives. It might be another story if the US had strong unions, but you simply can't remove the minimum wage in the US and suddenly expect unions to pick up the slack. It just wouldn't happen. It's a good idea, but it wouldn't happen.

[Machismo]

Ok riddle me this, maybe i have this wrong???

$3.35 was the min wage in 1982

The Base they use for inflation is CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)

1982 = 100 set as the baseline by the BLS

the CPI-U us now 263.161

So if 3.35 is the base of 100, 263.16 is 2.632 times greater

so 3.35 x 2.632 = $8.82


If we go back to 1947 when the CPI-u started it would be $4.90 an hour min wage based on using the 1947 data as baseline vs today


LOL, you want to use this ridiculous CPI-u as a way to track inflation relative to wages???

So you would support a reduction of min wage to $4.90??


The measurement of inflation has always been under done by multiples almost every year. Its a rediclous process using that as the only baseline for determining where min wage should be set

unless you are stupid and think people can live off $10,192 a year unless they were living under a bridge.

So, what metric do you want to base it on? If so, let's see the numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

Never it was, and kinda proves my point.

I'm not sure it does...

[Zan15]

My issue is with people pulling numbers out of magic hats (like $15 an hour), and trying to shove them down people's throats.

You'll notice that I previously stated Biden would be far better off working with the GOP, who are recommending an $11 minimum wage.

So why $11?
Where is the data to support $11?
Why is it different from the data to support $15

The 11 is just as "arbitrary" by your standards as much as $15 is.

[Machismo]

The cost of living has increased since 1968, when the minimum wage value was just under $12/hr. And I'm not talking about the overall cost of living. Adjusted for inflation, cost of living has gone up dramatically. Neither I nor anyone else can give you a giant mathematical breakdown of why $15/hr is necessary. Wages in general are generally arbitrary numbers. Why should you make the money you currently make? Could you give me a detailed breakdown of why you deserve whatever your salary is, the exact value you contribute to your company, how much money you make them, both directly and indirectly? Could you give me a graph of people working in your same field with the same qualifications and experience?

Yeah, you're not going to be able to pull that out of your ass without a ton of work that's completely unnecessary solely for the purpose of winning an internet argument.

Effectively all you're doing is sea lioning here. You're demanding people provide you with concrete proof of something that is an abstract concept.

The reason most people come by $15/hr is that in many regions, people who make $15/hr or around there abouts tend to make ends meet and have a little left over in the end for investment or free spending. So my reason "why" it should be $15/hr is that people need to make a basic living plus have a little bit on the side to either improve their fortunes or spend away as they see fit. The essential expenses are something people are always going to spend on, food, housing, etc, but overall people would be able to afford more nutritious food for themselves which would create more demand for food production. The extra money on the side would also create additional demand so that other companies that deal in non necessary living expenses would experience increased demand and business. It would stimulate the economy and create more fluidity of capital, which is a desired effect. Failing economies happen when money stagnates, when capital fluidity stops.

And that's the problem, the number then becomes arbitrary.

Sure, it feels nice to say that people deserve more... but in practice, states like WV will suffer for it.

As for my income, it's largely based on what my employer and my clients (for my job, as well as my business) are willing to pay, compared to what I'm willing to work for. In essence, it's simple supply and demand.

Would I be willing to work for less? yes.

Would they be willing to pay me more? yes.

$15 an hour was really just a talking point that turned into a rallying cry. That's the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

But $15 is not arbitrary. You keep claiming that it is, but you're mistaken.

According to MIT, for example, a living wage in 2020 was $16.54/hr.

So, why is it not $16.54 an hour?

Is that based on one region, an average of all?