Kansas Crimson

Careful phd, you’re starting to sound suspiciously socialist.


Fun fact: in some countries, minimum wage doesn’t even exist, because unions are so effective at negotiating fair wages in the first place

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:00 pm A smaller price increase over a large quantity is more manageable than a small increase at mom and pops.

The big business will benefit...again.

Yeah, as has been mentioned, wage increases aren’t necessarily the best tool to address wealth distribution

Let’s just have a reality show where big wig corporate CEOS have to live on the wages of their lowest paid employee

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:01 pm Careful phd, you’re starting to sound suspiciously socialist.


Fun fact: in some countries, minimum wage doesn’t even exist, because unions are so effective at negotiating fair wages in the first place

I would prefer the companies do it themselves, but they don't seem to ever do it.

Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum. It's not an either or thing.

Sometimes it's more about how you package it. A republican who claims to be a free-market capitalist can support a farm subsidy in the same way you were in support of removing Trump from twitter in spite of the fact that it was based on the grounds that a private business acting autonomously. Remember a couple days ago when you turned your back on your socialist agenda?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:59 pm Aren't there countries that regulate wages within a company, so that the highest paid executive can only make a certain amount more than the lowest paid or median salary.

You could make it so that the executive can only make 50X more than the lowest paid employee. I mean, if you think you're CEO is worth $2 million a year, surely your entry level employees are worth $40K.

I don't feel like the local florist who made $36K last year is exploiting anyone if she hires help at $8/hour, but man I DO have a problem with Wal-Mart having employees making minimum, or worse hiring them to work 30 hours so they don't have to pay benefits. And I don't know how to rectify those two things.

I mean, certainly an approach would be to impose the $15 minimum wage only on companies with a certain number of non-unionized, non-exempt workers.

“The Minimum Wage Thread”

Good stuff tho, guys.

The argument from conservatives that I hate (re: minimum wage) is that it gives people less incentive to educate themselves or be more motivated in life.

Money is everything of course! Sheesh.

sdoyel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:49 pm “The Minimum Wage Thread”

Good stuff tho, guys.

blame phd

Guess this goes here now, then.

cherry picker

Phd commented, “ Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum. It's not an either or thing.”

This seems valid.

But, it also seems like the pendulum has swung the way of capitalism for quite some time now.

Most of the “socialist” elements too overwhelmingly benefited those on the far right side of the hell curve, rather than the middle class or workers or average Joes or any other term for We The People.

Heck, how many billions in pandemic relief money have been handed out to we’re not even sure whom*, while the down and out waited around for an extra $600.

(And trying to swing this thread back on topic, how much relief money you wanna bet Trump Incorporated got this spring? Gotta pay the bills at Mar-A-Lago, ya know...)

monday

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN29R1X1

[McConnell] had criticized the Democrats' desire to move ahead with the process on a quicker timeline.

"This impeachment began with an unprecedentedly fast and minimal process...”


lulz

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:21 am [McConnell] had criticized the Democrats' desire to move ahead with the process on a quicker timeline.

"This impeachment began with an unprecedentedly fast and minimal process...”


lulz

This is why people hate politicians. Response should be just quoting him from the ACB nomination.

I dunno if it’s worth pointing out that the second impeachment was sort of time sensitive in itself, as there were concerns Trump would incite further trouble yet.

But also dunno if there’s any spin that can be put on the ACB shit beyond shameless bad faith.

Great thread.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:43 pm I dunno if it’s worth pointing out that the second impeachment was sort of time sensitive in itself, as there were concerns Trump would incite further trouble yet.

But also dunno if there’s any spin that can be put on the ACB shit beyond shameless bad faith.

The second impeachment did zero to prevent Trump from further inciting more violence.

?

And I’m real excited to see what stand republican senators take on this.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:14 am?

Honestly, how has it prevented him from doing anything? Losing his Twitter account helped this more than impeaching him again. For the record, it should have been done but it had nothing to do with preventing him from being able to throw a gas can on the flames.

To this point, the second impeachment has not changed his ability to do anything. He could still hold a press conference today to tell people the exact same thing he told them on the afternoon of Jan 6th.