St. Louis minimum wage will drop from $10 to $7.70

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Why not just drop it to $3.25 an hour like it was when I was a kid, if the poor can't carry their own weight, fuck em. They're just Americans worth less.

 

[Falsedawn]

True but the bigger offense is the posters trying to carve out the working poor from the definition of the working class is some bizarro BS MAGA attempt to merge pro working class sentiment with typical republican pull yourself up by your bootstraps eat the poor BS.

Anyone making THAT particular argument seems to hate the poor whether they are working or not (not saying that's you or everyone on that side of the argument of course).

I misread that lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not at all, any simpleton could see my argument was nothing of the sort.

Even though you very explicitly said that "these guys" (i.e., supporters of higher MW or liberals generally) don't care about the poor. The people who really care about the poor are the people who are proposing cuts to Medicaid to pay for huge tax cuts for rich investors, right?

I argued that lowering the minimum wage would likely have mixed results but was an interesting experiment, as raising the minimum had mixed results and was an interesting experiment.

You asserted that, but prior to that, you said that these guys (clearly referring to supporters of MW wage) don't care about the poor.

When it comes to caring for the poor, I never said that if one doesn't support this policy they do not care for the poor. I can see why you would misread this, because you are exactly the kind of unnuanced partisan who thinks of the poor as tokens to be exploited to argue in favor of this or that policy with little regard to how these policies actually affect people.

So your strategy here, after being busted making a silly and extremely partisan claim (you don't seem to view liberals as humans) is to inaccurately accuse me of doing the exact same thing that you did.

To me, those who care for the poor are those who take their own time and money and spend it on the poor, either individually, or in larger settings like a homeless shelter.

It's not either/or. I gave over $20K last year to various causes for the poor. But I also support policy solutions to poverty that would make that unnecessary. Meanwhile, you very consistently advocate for policy that would be harmful to poor people because it's all tribalism to you.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Even though you very explicitly said that "these guys" (i.e., supporters of higher MW or liberals generally) don't care about the poor. The people who really care about the poor are the people who are proposing cuts to Medicaid to pay for huge tax cuts for rich investors, right?

No, you would do much better if you read entire conversations rather than cherry picking quotes here and there. Context matters. My comment about "these guys" not caring for the poor was in reference to a comment on this antecedent:

Why does the GOP hate the working class?

People who make comments like this are using the poor as a bludgeon to win political arguments. They have no care for the actual condition of the poor.

You asserted that, but prior to that, you said that these guys (clearly referring to supporters of MW wage) don't care about the poor.

Once again, your lack of context has betrayed you Reading is fundamental.

So your strategy here, after being busted making a silly and extremely partisan claim (you don't seem to view liberals as humans) is to inaccurately accuse me of doing the exact same thing that you did.

I wasn't busted, and my claim was the opposite of partisan. I was noting that those who use the poor as a tool to advance their party or to denigrate the other party as in this case, do not actually care for the poor. You make such arguments all the time, which is why I included you.

 

[Falsedawn]

People who make comments like this are using the poor as a bludgeon to win political arguments. They have no care for the actual condition of the poor.

As a bludgeon to win political arguments? Has the GOP passed any policies in the last 30 years that weren't a glorified tax cut for the rich (or just a straight tax cut for that matter)? You're in here worrying about the statements, i'm worried about the damn policy. Fucking lol, but you guys (crying to throw them in a ditch) are the ones that care.

<puh-lease75>

 

[Squarechoke]

It always strikes me as odd that a country where the richest 20% own 93% of the combined wealth (they might own more as my stats have a few years on them) has so many people thinking that the poorest people have too much.

There's also plenty of countries with much higher wage equality that have lower unemployment than the US, so clearly it's not mandatory to target the poorest in order to create jobs. The US doesn't have the lowest unemployment among rich nations so it's obviously not the only factor though.

I saw a study where Americans were asked to say how they thought wealth distribution should look like, and how they thought it actually was in the US. Funnily enough Republicans and Democrats gave pretty much identical views on both (which of course meant that they thought it's far more equal than it is in reality) so judging by that neither side actually want it to be like it is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

People who make comments like this are using the poor as a bludgeon to win political arguments. They have no care for the actual condition of the poor.

People who make accurate comments that rile you. You know what's in your mind (though someone with your history cannot be trusted to tell the truth) so I'll defer on the issue of who you were referring to.

I wasn't busted, and my claim was the opposite of partisan. I was noting that those who use the poor as a tool to advance their party or to denigrate the other party as in this case, do not actually care for the poor. You make such arguments all the time, which is why I included you.

Sure it is. You're well aware that your party exclusively pushes policy changes that have (as I said at least at the first order) the effect of reducing income for the poor and raising it for high earners. You're trying to use social pressure to make it illegitimate to discuss rather than to refute it because that task is impossible. Why on Earth would you think that I don't care about the poor? I grew up poor. Lots of my friends are poor. My driving issue is that poverty is unnecessary in a country like America and bad policy is the primary reason we still have it.

 

[helltoupee]

again, $7 is not what a working class worker would make. Is what an illiterate, uneducated laborer makes for doing very menial jobs.

My neighbor who's a carpenter is 'working class' . The illegals who hang out at Home Depot are laborers with no skills whatsoever.

The funny thing is that those uneducated laborers you stare down your nose at probably work 10x harder than your lazy ass does.

 

[vespasian]

The funny thing is that those uneducated laborers you stare down your nose at probably work 10x harder than your lazy ass does.

it's about working smart, not hard.

 

[Gandhi]

Er, the worst comment along those lines was this:



Inga's argument is the exact opposite. If you *don't* support policy that has the (at least first-order) effect of further impoverishing the poor, you "don't care about the poor at all."

What did u think I said lol?

 

[Gandhi]

Heh, yeah that's fair, but generally speaking, those who oppose minimum wage hikes are not doing so because they are evil.

This attitude is not exclusive to this particular conversation, and I personally think it does a lot of harm. You end up dehumanizing the other side to the point that you risk associating any other perspective but your own as being morally bankrupt.

No not evil. Generally there are three motivations to opposed the minimum wage IMO.

Those whose bootrap libertarianism is really an ideological way of saying "what is good for me is really good for everyone else". Supply side economics at its best.

Those who have bought into the identity aspect of it ("they are poor not working class"). These 2 groups seem to overlap to quite an extent.

Then there are those with real policy questions. Even there it break down into those that use these policy arguments as an excuse to do nothing and those that prefer alternatives (like what I posted about earlier with regards to taxation, those that support minimum incomes, social programs, or even local property tax / education reform like @panamaican).

Unfortunately that just leaves many people opposed to any minimum wage increase who JDGAF about poverty and a small minority that really believe that the market will be the best solution.

 

[Rhood]

It's pretty fucked up when the Chinese make more money than you.
It proves how worthless the dollar value is.

 

[the ambush]

Seattle 15$ proponents were all giddy about how Seattle's economy didn't collapse when the law passed.

But they're idiots when it comes to free market capitalism with regulatory hurdles. Labor is just one aspect to how business decisions are made. Even if labor costs spike, i doesn't mean a business will simply up and move. Most Business have invested in lease agreements, infrastructure, equipment in their current facilities. It would be stupid to abandon all that for short term relief.

The real detriment to over regulating labor in a given area will happen over time. Businesses will slowly shift their resources and capital to other suburban sites. retail/restaurant business will shed employees wherever they can. The market will adjust.

Local politicians must understand. Regulations of these type must be done on a national level. Doing them locally just creates a regional comparative disadvantage that businesses will make adjustments to mitigate labor costs.

What ended up happening in Seattle was all the liberals begged for less hours once the $15 /per hour enforcement began. So no service job workers were requesting overtime on their time cards and actually had less hours vice more hours. That is really the problem in a nutshell, the service job workers want more money but will not accept an adjustment in more hours. People like myself get grumpy whenever the service job workers keep getting pissy about their salaries because they are not willing to put in the work.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Thank the gods.

Minimum wage is a horrible idea that only serves to delay the inevitable discussions and policy decisions surrounding a need for a minimum sustenance policy. As society and standards of living advance, they propel the legal standards of existence. As those standards increase, the ability of select segments to reach those standards decrease.

As much as we don't like to admit it, not everyone has enough to offer in a free market to maintain a "legal" standard of existence in the 21st century U.S.A. (read: neither homeless nor occupying a residence that fails to meets legal code).


Like it or not, we are going to have to pick-up the check for some, especially without a major shift in cultural standards of morality.

 

[dontsnitch]

No not evil. Generally there are three motivations to opposed the minimum wage IMO.

Those whose bootrap libertarianism is really an ideological way of saying "what is good for me is really good for everyone else". Supply side economics at its best.

Those who have bought into the identity aspect of it ("they are poor not working class"). These 2 groups seem to overlap to quite an extent.

Then there are those with real policy questions. Even there it break down into those that use these policy arguments as an excuse to do nothing and those that prefer alternatives (like what I posted about earlier with regards to taxation, those that support minimum incomes, social programs, or even local property tax / education reform like @panamaican).

Unfortunately that just leaves many people opposed to any minimum wage increase who JDGAF about poverty and a small minority that really believe that the market will be the best solution.

Consider that one can level the exact same accusations of selfishness to proponents of an increased MW since
these arguments tacitly suggest that people must believe the outcome is a net negative, but continue to argue for it for immoral reasons.

For instance, one can claim that people are selfish, and they just want more money for themselves at the expense of other people. You can claim proponents are simply jealous and want to steal money from those with more money. If they actually believe the policy they support is a net positive, then these accusations don't hold water, just as they don't for opponents of it. That is, they believe the policy they support is better for everyone.

Who wants to see the poor remain poor? Who is making policy prescriptions because they are jealous or vindictive? However many of these people exist, it's not a majority, and I doubt it's even a significant number.

I see this ad hom all the time, and not just in this discussion. You can see it in health care, immigration, border control, trade, etc. "You only believe that because you and your side hate such and such group". It's nonsense. At the very least it's a small minority of people.

 

[Gandhi]

Consider that one can level the exact same accusations of selfishness to proponents of an increased MW since
these arguments tacitly suggest that people must believe the outcome is a net negative, but continue to argue for it for immoral reasons.

For instance, one can claim that people are selfish, and they just want more money for themselves at the expense of other people. You can claim proponents are simply jealous and want to steal money from those with more money. If they actually believe the policy they support is a net positive, then these accusations don't hold water, just as they don't for opponents of it. That is, they believe the policy they support is better for everyone.

Who wants to see the poor remain poor? Who is making policy prescriptions because they are jealous or vindictive? However many of these people exist, it's not a majority, and I doubt it's even a significant number.

I see this ad hom all the time, and not just in this discussion. You can see it in health care, immigration, border control, trade, etc. "You only believe that because you and your side hate such and such group". It's nonsense. At the very least it's a small minority of people.

No it's not exactly the same, not even close. Most of the people advocating on behalf of the poor are not poor themselves. So you can't just level this motivation of selfishness towards them.

And even amoung those that are poor, the motive (to be able to have a living existence) can't be reasonable called exactly the same as someone who is worried about the minor wage inflation impact from a minor minimum wage increase.

Again I did not use the word "hate", I have agreed with you that this term is over the top from the outset. But DGAF, is fair. If people cared they would be proposing other realistic ways help the poor (beyond the charity copeout).

Edit : to be fair to what I think u r driving at there is a group on the pro min wage side that is just as flawed in its own way : where self righteous morality overtakes economic reality and the idea of self responsibility. I just don't think that group is where the we are having issues today in the USA, that could change of course.

 

[dontsnitch]

No it's not exactly the same, not even close. Most of the people advocating on behalf of the poor are not poor themselves. So you can't just level this motivation of selfishness towards them.

And even amoung those that are poor, the motive (to be able to have a living existence) can't be reasonable called exactly the same as someone who is worried about the minor wage inflation impact from a minor minimum wage increase.

Again I did not use the word "hate", I have agreed with you that this term is over the top from the outset. But DGAF, is fair. If people cared they would be proposing other realistic ways help the poor (beyond the charity copeout).

Edit : to be fair to what I think u r driving at there is a group on the pro min wage side that is just as flawed in its own way : where self righteous morality overtakes economic reality and the idea of self responsibility. I just don't think that group is where the we are having issues today in the USA, that could change of course.

I hesitated typing more just because my post was getting long, and I didn't want to throw a wall of text at you. I could have conceded some ground right off the bat, but I figured I'd share my perspective first just so you at least know what I think- which is that people want what's generally best for humanity, and as such, the objections here amount to ad homs. You're right that it's not exactly the same, but let me offer a quick addendum before I shift gears, which is that I agree that you don't have to be poor to advocate for the poor, but that still doesn't mean your motives for doing so are righteous. It ultimately depends on what you believe the implications of the new policy are, and I think that whatever you believe is best is what you argue for.

I concede I could be wrong here, it's just that I have a hard time accepting that people could be disgusting enough to want to keep poor people down for no logical reason (if that's what you mean by DGAF) especially when there are legitimate reasons to oppose the change, and it's not like there can be an objective and truthful study to verify people's actual agenda. I grew up poor and I'm not rich by any means. I have a hard time looking down at those who are struggling, and I assume I'm not unique, as most of the people I've met have not led me to believe otherwise. Add the fact that these type of "ad homs" are not exclusive to this one topic, as we constantly see the same type of moral accusations across the political board, and I'm inclined to believe it's just an arguing tactic, or misconception.

This question applies not only to this, but to current politics in general - if you can't be perfectly assured that a belief you hold is true, do you live agnostically, or do you live with conviction?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I concede I could be wrong here, it's just that I have a hard time accepting that people could be disgusting enough to want to keep poor people down for no logical reason (if that's what you mean by DGAF) especially when there are legitimate reasons to oppose the change, and it's not like there can be an objective and truthful study to verify people's actual agenda.

"DGAF"= "don't give a fuck."

I don't think a majority of people who support policy that has a first-order effect of redistribution away from the poor actively want to harm the poor; they just don't care. Partisan politics or market fundamentalism are a stronger pull.

This represents the GOP's strategy for helping the poor:



Cut estate taxes, cut taxes on capital income, and cut taxes on high incomes. Will that help the poor or middle class?

 

[Delmrus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but dont recent studies in Seattle suggest that on average workers are losing pay due to the increase of minimum wage? Less hours, less new hires.


Sidenote. I was in East St Louis 20 years ago (it's probably changed by now) but holy s*** that was the worst ghetto I think I've ever come across my life. The White Castle we went to had bars where you ordered your food. And everyone seemed to have just ran out of gas...ahhhh memories.

Yeah, that never happened. You got any any sources for this BS? I couldn't find anything about ANY White Castles having bars where you order your food. You right wingers always seem to tell these stories, but you guys always make it obvious that you have actually never been to a bad area with weird lies like this.

 

[Gandhi]

I hesitated typing more just because my post was getting long, and I didn't want to throw a wall of text at you. I could have conceded some ground right off the bat, but I figured I'd share my perspective first just so you at least know what I think- which is that people want what's generally best for humanity, and as such, the objections here amount to ad homs. You're right that it's not exactly the same, but let me offer a quick addendum before I shift gears, which is that I agree that you don't have to be poor to advocate for the poor, but that still doesn't mean your motives for doing so are righteous. It ultimately depends on what you believe the implications of the new policy are, and I think that whatever you believe is best is what you argue for.

I concede I could be wrong here, it's just that I have a hard time accepting that people could be disgusting enough to want to keep poor people down for no logical reason (if that's what you mean by DGAF) especially when there are legitimate reasons to oppose the change, and it's not like there can be an objective and truthful study to verify people's actual agenda. I grew up poor and I'm not rich by any means. I have a hard time looking down at those who are struggling, and I assume I'm not unique, as most of the people I've met have not led me to believe otherwise. Add the fact that these type of "ad homs" are not exclusive to this one topic, as we constantly see the same type of moral accusations across the political board, and I'm inclined to believe it's just an arguing tactic, or misconception.

This question applies not only to this, but to current politics in general - if you can't be perfectly assured that a belief you hold is true, do you live agnostically, or do you live with conviction?

Thanks and I appreciate where you are coming from.

I'll try to split this up. Believing that the minimum wage is correct is by definition is not something you can hold with conviction. It's a contextual policy (how much, where, applied to who, etc).

You could hold, with some but not absolute conviction, something more general. For me it's the conviction that market based systems create the most wealth but do not adequately address distribution in general and poverty in particular. The result of that conviction is that we should develop policy that adddresses that without cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Unless you think last place aversion and identity politics are logical, then yes, as evidenced by this very thread, some of this is just not logical. And you are right it applies equally to things like healthcare where we are told that somehow the republican party is somehow more working class for proposing tax cuts on property income for those making greater than $250k vs Obamacare/min wage hikes from the Dems.

For others it is indeed logical becuase it impacts them through higher prices and / or paying higher wages. That's fine but unless they are proposing something else then they, by definition, they DGAF, they have other concerns. Again a guy like Pan, who thinks neither party has the solution, so he votes in his interests (republican) is a good example, becuase he wants a total overall haul of the property tax based education system. It's a redistributive policy with teeth. So if he were to advocate for that but poo poo a min wage (don't know his stance), he would be exempt from the moral labeling.

Sorry getting into walls of text here as well .