Should states in the U.S raise minimum wage or abolish it completely?

[Endus]

I don't know what do you want regarding savings, deny to people the ability to save? why are you trying to argue against that? do you want people to be totally dependant on a state? if not, why arguing against it?

I'm not. You are making shit up, here.

I am pointing out that saving is a literal impossibility for those in poverty. They have the technical ability to save, in that they can open a savings account at a bank, but they do not have the surplus finances they can actually put in that bank account over time. That's the bit where you're just flatly, objectively wrong, and your position can not work. Not "I disagree it would be as effective", it's literally not possible. You're demanding the impossible, and blaming them for failing to meet that impossible goal.

It's literally a "boostraps" argument; that they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Consider the origin of the phrase; "bootstraps" are basically shoelaces. And "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" means to lift yourself off the ground by bending over and lifting up your shoelaces. It's literally impossible.

And that's what you're demanding, here.

it seems you have a bias against freedom, but it's okay because everyone is different I suppose

Typical libertarian wankery. I'm not "against freedom". This is a garbage argument brought up by far-right or right-lib types as a generic "NO U" bullshit response, whenever they can't make their case.

I don't recall people having the ability to save properly recently with the dollar. to me the economy worked pretty well a while ago when gold was used. sadly we can't realistically use gold anymore as it's impractical, and our technology makes gold a bit too primitive

If you think the gold standard was "better", you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The gold standard led to vastly increased volatility in prices and caused much larger boom-bust cycles. There is no gains to be made by shifting back, and you won't find any reputable economists arguing in favor of it for a reason. https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard/

on redistribution, you're right, we don't live in a world of heavy redistribution. but many wants to move from a world of redistribution, to a world of heavy redistribution

"Redistribution" is a nonsense buzzword.

Literally all economic activity is "redistribution". All that changes is what that redistribution accomplishes. When arguing against taxation to fund social support measures, what you're actually saying is not that you "oppose heavy redistribution", but that you don't think the economy should support a large segment of the population, and that segment of people should rightly suffer.

I think capitalism is human nature, which is why we need a state to protect us from our primitive nature.

Then you're wrong. There's a reason capitalism didn't meaningfully exist until Adam Smith came up with the idea just a couple centuries ago.

If you're confusing it with "markets and trade", you should spend some time learning what capitalism is. Because capitalism did not invent those concepts. You're off by several thousand years, there.

[Cæli]

I'm not. You are making shit up, here.

I am pointing out that saving is a literal impossibility for those in poverty. They have the technical ability to save, in that they can open a savings account at a bank, but they do not have the surplus finances they can actually put in that bank account over time. That's the bit where you're just flatly, objectively wrong, and your position can not work. Not "I disagree it would be as effective", it's literally not possible. You're demanding the impossible, and blaming them for failing to meet that impossible goal.

It's literally a "boostraps" argument; that they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Consider the origin of the phrase; "bootstraps" are basically shoelaces. And "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" means to lift yourself off the ground by bending over and lifting up your shoelaces. It's literally impossible.

And that's what you're demanding, here.



Typical libertarian wankery. I'm not "against freedom". This is a garbage argument brought up by far-right or right-lib types as a generic "NO U" bullshit response, whenever they can't make their case.



If you think the gold standard was "better", you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The gold standard led to vastly increased volatility in prices and caused much larger boom-bust cycles. There is no gains to be made by shifting back, and you won't find any reputable economists arguing in favor of it for a reason. https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard/



"Redistribution" is a nonsense buzzword.

Literally all economic activity is "redistribution". All that changes is what that redistribution accomplishes. When arguing against taxation to fund social support measures, what you're actually saying is not that you "oppose heavy redistribution", but that you don't think the economy should support a large segment of the population, and that segment of people should rightly suffer.



Then you're wrong. There's a reason capitalism didn't meaningfully exist until Adam Smith came up with the idea just a couple centuries ago.

If you're confusing it with "markets and trade", you should spend some time learning what capitalism is. Because capitalism did not invent those concepts. You're off by several thousand years, there.

again, if they can't save, it's because of the current system. if the system had been fair from the start, and people had the ability to save properly, then there wouldn't be that many people in debt or poor. I wonder again why are those people in debt, who allows that to happen if they can't afford it? and is there any people which profits from that? I just dislike this system, I find it unfair

I wasn't talking about the gold standard, but gold itself, when gold was used as a currency and just that.

when I look up at the definition of capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." are states natural? looks like it fits human nature
another definition "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor." ownership, accumulation, competition, property, maybe you can say exploitation of the weakest? all of that is pretty much fitting what humans are and want by nature.
but capitalism is just a word; I'm just seeing that it works when it comes to produce wealth and technology, and that its main issue, exploitation and the fate of the weakest, is exactly like what you find in nature

I never said that people should suffer, I said that there's people that need help and those people shall be given help. if heavy taxes can be avoided for that matter, then they should. maybe accept that people who don't exactly have your views don't want to make people suffer just because they disagree with your ways?

[Endus]

again, if they can't save, it's because of the current system. if the system had been fair from the start, and people had the ability to save properly, then there wouldn't be that many people in debt or poor. I wonder again why are those people in debt, who allows that to happen if they can't afford it? and is there any people which profits from that? I just dislike this system, I find it unfair

It is.

The problem is that your solution was to dismiss the problem itself and tell people in poverty to "just save more". While arguing against any solutions to actually fix the issue.

It isn't inflation. It isn't a lack of savings. It's a lack of a minimum living wage and social support for those who are not/cannot work.

I wasn't talking about the gold standard, but gold itself, when gold was used as a currency and just that.

Which . . . basically was the gold standard.

Again; no reputable economist agrees that it would improve a damned thing. There was no benefit.

when I look up at the definition of capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." are states natural? looks like it fits human nature

States are as "natural" as anything else in human society. If you aren't talking about going back to hunter-gatherer lifestyles in small family groups, then you're talking about a human society with a concept of a state.

Also note that the whole "control" and "private owners" and "profit" labels are even more arbitrary than the label of "state". They antedate the concept of a state, they don't predate it.

another definition "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor." ownership, accumulation, competition, property, maybe you can say exploitation of the weakest? all of that is pretty much fitting what humans are and want by nature.

Literally no evidence of that in anthropology. Also, you really need to learn what "private ownership of the means of production" means. Because, for example, feudalism was not capitalistic and structurally could not be. Even if feudal lords were competing with each other, owning property, and accumulating wealth.

but capitalism is just a word; I'm just seeing that it works when it comes to produce wealth and technology, and that its main issue, exploitation and the fate of the weakest, is exactly like what you find in nature

Which, even if it were true, would be an argument against it.

We kind of expect people to not be bestial uncivilized animals.

I never said that people should suffer, I said that there's people that need help and those people shall be given help. if heavy taxes can be avoided for that matter, then they should. maybe accept that people who don't exactly have your views don't want to make people suffer just because they disagree with your ways?

There's plenty of people who disagree with my views who I don't describe this way. Because their arguments don't fundamentally and inherently call for a standard predicated on human suffering.

Your position explicitly was to deny support to those in poverty and to blame them for failing to lift themselves out of it. When they lack the capacity to do so. It's like watching a drowning child and shouting from the bank "just swim!" You're enjoying watching that kid drown, rather than diving in to swim out and save them. And yeah; I'll call that out every time.

[Cæli]

It is.

The problem is that your solution was to dismiss the problem itself and tell people in poverty to "just save more". While arguing against any solutions to actually fix the issue.

It isn't inflation. It isn't a lack of savings. It's a lack of a minimum living wage and social support for those who are not/cannot work.



Which . . . basically was the gold standard.

Again; no reputable economist agrees that it would improve a damned thing. There was no benefit.



States are as "natural" as anything else in human society. If you aren't talking about going back to hunter-gatherer lifestyles in small family groups, then you're talking about a human society with a concept of a state.

Also note that the whole "control" and "private owners" and "profit" labels are even more arbitrary than the label of "state". They antedate the concept of a state, they don't predate it.



Literally no evidence of that in anthropology. Also, you really need to learn what "private ownership of the means of production" means. Because, for example, feudalism was not capitalistic and structurally could not be. Even if feudal lords were competing with each other, owning property, and accumulating wealth.



Which, even if it were true, would be an argument against it.

We kind of expect people to not be bestial uncivilized animals.



There's plenty of people who disagree with my views who I don't describe this way. Because their arguments don't fundamentally and inherently call for a standard predicated on human suffering.

Your position explicitly was to deny support to those in poverty and to blame them for failing to lift themselves out of it. When they lack the capacity to do so. It's like watching a drowning child and shouting from the bank "just swim!" You're enjoying watching that kid drown, rather than diving in to swim out and save them. And yeah; I'll call that out every time.

when gold was used, the currency wasn't subject to bad monetary policies which creates the situation we're in.

I want to fix what allowed it to happen in the first place, and limit debt as much as possible, which would probably be a slow process, and help those who need help in the meantime. we cannot predict the future and we cannot keep talking without doing anything, so I suggest to watch your solutions in action, same conclusion as earlier; I'll watch

yes, we would like people to not be uncivilized animals. but no matter what you wish, most of us are not "civil" enough to be compatible with what many leftists propose. we are selfish by nature, and we cannot go against human nature. forcing some particular rules on people will create all sorts of problems. you might be on to something

I don't deny support of those in poverty, I'll repeat myself again with a quote, "there's people that need help and those people shall be given help"

I get that you have a lot of empathy but please understand what I say, and also try to understand that many people are not actually concerned with what happens to others, this needs to be taken into account in a pragmatic policy, we have to live with them whether we like it or not

[Endus]

when gold was used, the currency wasn't subject to bad monetary policies which creates the situation we're in.

It was subject to worse policies, which led to, among other things, the Great Depression.

yes, we would like people to not be uncivilized animals. but no matter what you wish, most of us are not "civil" enough to be compatible with what many leftists propose. we are selfish by nature, and we cannot go against human nature. forcing some particular rules on people will create all sorts of problems. you might be on to something

None of this is true. It's just naked misanthropy.

I get that you have a lot of empathy but please understand what I say, and also try to understand that many people are not actually concerned with what happens to others, this needs to be taken into account in a pragmatic policy, we have to live with them whether we like it or not

No. It does not. Same way we don't need to consider the desires of racists when drafting social justice policy. Or the interests of thieves and drug dealers when drafting criminal laws.

[Elegiac]

yes but don't forget that we're (or most are) selfish before anything

No, we aren't. This is a myth propagated by capitalists.

You're confusing predisposition to an ingroup/outgroup binary with selfishness, largely to justify being selfish.

- - - Updated - - -

when gold was used, the currency wasn't subject to bad monetary policies which creates the situation we're in.

And this is a blatant fucking lie.



Recessions were far more frequent and lasted far longer prior to the abolition of the gold standard in the 1940s.

[unfilteredJW]

Anytime you read “we are selfish and awful” remember to read it as “I am selfish and awful but to justify that I will paint everyone to be just like me.”

No kiddo. You are just awful. Singular.

[Elegiac]

Anytime you read “we are selfish and awful” remember to read it as “I am selfish and awful but to justify that I will paint everyone to be just like me.”

No kiddo. You are just awful. Singular.

To quote a great philosopher: "Isn't rationalization just an attempt to make our feelings contagious?"

"Humans are inherently selfish" and the ideology of capitalist realism it supports is the new divine right of kings.

[Endus]

Anytime you read “we are selfish and awful” remember to read it as “I am selfish and awful but to justify that I will paint everyone to be just like me.”

No kiddo. You are just awful. Singular.

The silliest damned thing about it is that humanity, as a species, is incredibly social, with a host of direct evolutionary traits that compound that sociability. The instinct for language, which only serves a purpose with others. Our tendency towards long-term pair-bonding sexually over just wham-bam when the female's in heat (not talking monogamy, so don't mischaracterize this). That our empathy is so ridiculously overtuned we anthropomorphize dangerous predators to the point of integrating them into our social groups. And so on.

The idea that we're naturally selfish is so counter to anthropology and basic evolutionary biology that it's pretty clear it's just projection.

[Elegiac]

That our empathy is so ridiculously overtuned we anthropomorphize dangerous predators to the point of integrating them into our social groups.

Hell, we even anthropomorphize inanimate objects sometimes as well.

[Gestopft]

I think it's because of the whole system which allows this level of inflation

Inflation has been overall trending downward for decades.

[Cæli]

Inflation has been overall trending downward for decades.

the inflation has always been by far positive every years on average which is enough to devalue dollar savings over time

[Endus]

the inflation has always been by far positive every years on average which is enough to devalue dollar savings over time

Which is also a desired and intended benefit, not something to complain about. A modest, controlled amount of inflation encourages investment over hoarding.

[zealo]

Not having a legislated minimum wage only real works in places where unions are entrenched enough to push back against employers in the place of the government mandating a minimum floor.

That isn't really a place much of the USA is at.

[Shadowferal]

For Americans earning the minimum wage, surging inflation is making their dollar the weakest it's been in more than a decade.

On the surface, the labor market seems to finally be benefitting low-income workers. Wage growth surged to the fastest pace since the 1980s through April and May. Businesses are increasingly using signing bonuses and other incentives to attract workers. And quits soared to a record high in April, suggesting Americans are confident in their chances at finding a better job.

But that encouraging trend is reversed — and then some — by booming inflation seen through reopening. Price growth has accelerated to its fastest one-year pace since 2008 as a wave of pent-up demand runs up against widespread shortages and production bottlenecks. After accounting for the broad upswing in consumer prices, the minimum wage is the weakest it's been since 2008.

The rate of decline has also accelerated through spring, suggesting the real minimum wage could soon breach multi-decade lows.

[Endus]

For Americans earning the minimum wage, surging inflation is making their dollar the weakest it's been in more than a decade.

On the surface, the labor market seems to finally be benefitting low-income workers. Wage growth surged to the fastest pace since the 1980s through April and May. Businesses are increasingly using signing bonuses and other incentives to attract workers. And quits soared to a record high in April, suggesting Americans are confident in their chances at finding a better job.

But that encouraging trend is reversed — and then some — by booming inflation seen through reopening. Price growth has accelerated to its fastest one-year pace since 2008 as a wave of pent-up demand runs up against widespread shortages and production bottlenecks. After accounting for the broad upswing in consumer prices, the minimum wage is the weakest it's been since 2008.

The rate of decline has also accelerated through spring, suggesting the real minimum wage could soon breach multi-decade lows.

Again, the villain here is not "inflation", it's "minimum wage policy whereby conservatives actively use inflation and delay tactics to deliberately exacerbate poverty and human suffering".

You could just, like, tie minimum wage rates directly to inflation, and solve the "problem" forever, if that was your interest.