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

[Gandhi]

"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?

It's a what is good for me must be good for everyone mindset that just ignores things like the change in the min wage / absolute amount of said minimum compared to other OECD countries or the change in income distribution over the last 50 years. It's extreme supply side economics that really does = DGAF.

 

[Gandhi]

I misread that lol

What did u think i said?

 

[dontsnitch]

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 .

What we believe about the actual policies is kind of moot. I believe you're earnest in your evaluation, so this doesn't apply to you, that is, you're not making emotional decisions. Personally, I don't see how a big minimum wage hike doesn't hurt those it purports to help, but I'm less interested in a policy discussion than answering the more general question of morality.

When you say that for others it's logical because it impacts them directly, surely this means that their decision is not based on simply wanting to keep the poor man down, but it's like you said, a vote for their self-interest or even a belief that it's net positive as a whole. Why is that any less immoral than anyone else advocating for their own self interest as would be the case for someone who is making minimum wage and just wants more money, or someone who think this is best for society?

I'm not denying that there aren't immoral people out there, but I can't accept that a significant amount of people are making decisions for the purpose of hurting the less fortunate. Again, this character attack is ubiquitous in politics. When the topic of illegal immigration comes up, if you show concern for the amount of illegals you must be racist. When the topic of health care comes up, if you object to UHC you must want to see people die in the street. When refugees, you're an Islamaphobe. When climate change, you're anti-science. When SSM, you want to stop gay people from having sex. And on and on. You have to forgive me if I see a pattern that does not reflect (my) reality.

Again, this is just how I see humanity and politics. I respect you and you're a good poster, so I don't want to beat a dead horse too much. I concede I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but most importantly, I hope I'm not.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

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.

Not sure if serious.

But I was definitely in a White Castle in East Saint Louis and there were definitely bars at the ordering window... I'm sure they've been victims of robbery, hence the bars.

You can go to fast food joints TODAY that have bullet proof glass. Security measures change over time. It had bars, sorry if that offends you.

 

[Gandhi]

What we believe about the actual policies is kind of moot. I believe you're earnest in your evaluation, so this doesn't apply to you, that is, you're not making emotional decisions. Personally, I don't see how a big minimum wage hike doesn't hurt those it purports to help, but I'm less interested in a policy discussion than answering the more general question of morality.

When you say that for others it's logical because it impacts them directly, surely this means that their decision is not based on simply wanting to keep the poor man down, but it's like you said, a vote for their self-interest or even a belief that it's net positive as a whole. Why is that any less immoral than anyone else advocating for their own self interest as would be the case for someone who is making minimum wage and just wants more money, or someone who think this is best for society?

I'm not denying that there aren't immoral people out there, but I can't accept that a significant amount of people are making decisions for the purpose of hurting the less fortunate. Again, this character attack is ubiquitous in politics. When the topic of illegal immigration comes up, if you show concern for the amount of illegals you must be racist. When the topic of health care comes up, if you object to UHC you must want to see people die in the street. When refugees, you're an Islamaphobe. When climate change, you're anti-science. When SSM, you want to stop gay people from having sex. And on and on. You have to forgive me if I see a pattern that does not reflect (my) reality.

Again, this is just how I see humanity and politics. I respect you and you're a good poster, so I don't want to beat a dead horse too much. I concede I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but most importantly, I hope I'm not.

Re the bold, because those advocating for their own self interest are at the top and have been getting higher over the last 50 years while the poor and middle class in this country have barley moved.

This while other counties have raised the min wage and expanded programs to at least somewhat minimize this effect. And now the one major policy that has helped the poor and working class is under attack as somehow, not good for the working class.

I don't want to call it immoral, people can look out for #1 if they want. But I think it's selfish, shortsighted, and not good for society. It hallows out our culture and even economy.

Don't you see, I am a free market advocate, and if these were not the facts then I would not be making this point. And that point is that supply side economics on its own does not work. Policy is needed and people arguing against that are imo doing so becuase they are selfish, buying into identity/ LPA propaganda, or have a misguided ideology but genuinely mean well, or some combo of the above. I'm not advocating a big increase / neither is JVS. But we are not fighting tooth and nail against any increase and want to look at other policy solutions beyond appeals to market fundamentalism.

Apologies as I am just repeating my self up there, I'll just add that all the stuff you threw on about gays and Muslims have a very sinister other side to it. All gays rights activists want to destroy the family, all pro refugees are cucks that want to destroy the nation, if you believe in the scientific consensus then you are a dupe to the liberal education / media establishment / enviro lobby. The level of vindictive coming from the tea party, then the alt right makes it hard to take this list to seriously.

There is BS on both sides, so we at the end of the day we are really arguing about whose BS smells worse given the context of a particular time. Ie If we were living under Lenin, that's were the BS would smellier.

 

[Delmrus]

Not sure if serious.

But I was definitely in a White Castle in East Saint Louis and there were definitely bars at the ordering window... I'm sure they've been victims of robbery, hence the bars.

You can go to fast food joints TODAY that have bullet proof glass. Security measures change over time. It had bars, sorry if that offends you.

Like i said, Source? I can't find anything about what you're claiming. And no, it doesn't offend me, i'm sure the place is a shithole. It's just annoying when people on this forum lie or exaggerate everything to try and make a point.

Not to mention, your post is completely irrelevant to the thread, so i don't know why you posted about white castle's "bars" to begin with.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not denying that there aren't immoral people out there, but I can't accept that a significant amount of people are making decisions for the purpose of hurting the less fortunate. Again, this character attack is ubiquitous in politics. When the topic of illegal immigration comes up, if you show concern for the amount of illegals you must be racist. When the topic of health care comes up, if you object to UHC you must want to see people die in the street. When refugees, you're an Islamaphobe. When climate change, you're anti-science. When SSM, you want to stop gay people from having sex. And on and on. You have to forgive me if I see a pattern that does not reflect (my) reality.

Surprise surprise, you only see partisan attacks going one way and completely omit the same sorts of attacks coming from the right. To you it seems character attacks only come from the left...

 

[dontsnitch]

Re the bold, because those advocating for their own self interest are at the top and have been getting higher over the last 50 years while the poor and middle class in this country have barley moved.

This while other counties have raised the min wage and expanded programs to at least somewhat minimize this effect. And now the one major policy that has helped the poor and working class is under attack as somehow, not good for the working class.

I don't want to call it immoral, people can look out for #1 if they want. But I think it's selfish, shortsighted, and not good for society. It hallows out our culture and even economy.

Don't you see, I am a free market advocate, and if these were not the facts then I would not be making this point. And that point is that supply side economics on its own does not work. Policy is needed and people arguing against that are imo doing so becuase they are selfish, buying into identity/ LPA propaganda, or have a misguided ideology but genuinely mean well, or some combo of the above. I'm not advocating a big increase / neither is JVS. But we are not fighting tooth and nail against any increase and want to look at other policy solutions beyond appeals to market fundamentalism.

Apologies as I am just repeating my self up there, I'll just add that all the stuff you threw on about gays and Muslims have a very sinister other side to it. All gays rights activists want to destroy the family, all pro refugees are cucks that want to destroy the nation, if you believe in the scientific consensus then you are a dupe to the liberal education / media establishment / enviro lobby. The level of vindictive coming from the tea party, then the alt right makes it hard to take this list to seriously.

There is BS on both sides, so we at the end of the day we are really arguing about whose BS smells worse given the context of a particular time. Ie If we were living under Lenin, that's were the BS would smellier.

Now that you've explained that it's not immoral per se, I can more easily see your perspective. Though I'll wager that the vast majority of the people in the WR fall into the Middle Class, and as such, I don't think these people are fat cats "at the top" like the ones you're describing, which is why the "you don't care about poor people" makes even less sense here, IMO.

As for the "sinister other side", that's exactly my point. Both sides are engaged in some tribal war of rhetoric, which is what I'm objecting to.

Last question for you to get a better sense of your position- out of 100 people who disagree with a minimum wage hike, how many are doing it because they don't care about poor people, versus thinking that it's simply not advantageous? Just a rough estimate to get a sense of how you see the world.

 

[dontsnitch]

Surprise surprise, you only see partisan attacks going one way and completely omit the same sorts of attacks coming from the right. To you it seems character attacks only come from the left...

I'm not sure what's going on with you lately, but you're uncharacteristically snapping at everyone. You take this stuff personally (and make it personal) for whatever reason, especially conversations about Islam.

I stated from the start that this is coming from both sides. Gandhi has taken one perspective, and I am challenging him on it, even though I have conceded. We've had a perfectly pleasant exchange, there's no need to insert your anger here.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Like i said, Source? I can't find anything about what you're claiming. And no, it doesn't offend me, i'm sure the place is a shithole. It's just annoying when people on this forum lie or exaggerate everything to try and make a point.

Not to mention, your post is completely irrelevant to the thread, so i don't know why you posted about white castle's "bars" to begin with.

Fuck bro.. wake up on wrong side of the bed?

You accept that fast food restaurants currently have bullet proof glass but to you it's unimaginable that one 20 years ago had bars instead?

And yes it said... "side note", meaning I Knew it wasn't directly related to the post.

Go for a walk.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not advocating a big increase / neither is JVS. But we are not fighting tooth and nail against any increase and want to look at other policy solutions beyond appeals to market fundamentalism.

Yeah, I have been openly opposing a big increase on a national level for a while. Contrary to what @IngaVovchanchyn says, it's all about the research for liberals (using that term broadly to include right-leaning liberals). For a while, MW wasn't a well-studied issue, but we see that with very similar places having different policies, there's a real opportunity to find out the effects. It was, I think, surprising to most that modest increases don't seem to have the negative impact that many people expected, and it appears to me that a former consensus of economists that MW increases were a bad idea has dissolved. Then, recently, we had a study that suggested that $13/hr in Seattle is too high.

So as more information becomes available, people who actually care about the issue are adjusting their positions. But market fundamentalists--who are a large, dominant portion of at least people influential in setting GOP policy--don't care about the research. They don't support cutting MW (or making regressive changes to tax policy, cutting entitlements, etc.) because they think it will have good effects; they support cutting it because they think it's immoral. If you're committed to making those policies regardless of their effects, the effects-based arguments you make are just propaganda and you really DGAF about how it affects people.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Contrary to what @IngaVovchanchyn says, it's all about the research for liberals (using that term broadly to include right-leaning liberals).

It's weird Jack. Weird. Every thread you are trying actively to misconstrue something I said somewhere. Can you please quote the comment I made that you are referring to? I do not recall saying that liberals don't care about research.

I'm obviously of a conservative bent, but am well able to criticize the right, and especially the far right. As for liberals. I like them quite a bit and find most of their views valid even if I disagree. From time to time I do make sweeping negative generalizations, but they are almost always aimed at far left radicals who are too often grouped with liberals.

As far as research goes, on minimum wage almost everyone allows this subject to boil down to cheap slogans.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's weird Jack. Weird. Every thread you are trying actively to misconstrue something I said somewhere. Can you please quote the comment I made that you are referring to? I do not recall saying that liberals don't care about research.

"These guys don't care about actual results and they don't care about the poor at all."

As far as research goes, on minimum wage almost everyone allows this subject to boil down to cheap slogans.

Did you read my post? We've seen a lot of evolution from liberals on the issue as more evidence has come in (not always the correct evolution, as I think the work showing minimal to no negative effects of modest increases has inspired the support for a national $15/hr MW, which would be disastrous, IMO, and is at any rate not justified by the research). From people who oppose the policy at its source, no evolution is possible, and, yes, it's just cheap slogans.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

"These guys don't care about actual results and they don't care about the poor at all."

Exactly. And by these guys, I was not referring to liberals, as I already explicitly made clear to you earlier.[/QUOTE]

You insist on twisting my words, when I obviously didn't mean what you have repeatedly said I did. Why? What's weird is that we are actually close to agreement on this issue, but your creepy personal vendetta against me blinds you from seeing that.

 

[Delmrus]

Fuck bro.. wake up on wrong side of the bed?

You accept that fast food restaurants currently have bullet proof glass but to you it's unimaginable that one 20 years ago had bars instead?

And yes it said... "side note", meaning I Knew it wasn't directly related to the post.

Go for a walk.

You're post before this one came off much more butthurt than mine did, and now you're deflecting. You can't prove it and can't find a source so now you're trying to say i'm "mad". If you knew it had nothing to do with the thread topic, then why post it? Oh, because you wanted to lie to try and push a narrative. I've been to many terrible neighborhoods and unless you are a gang member, start shit with someone, or walk around alone at night with stuff worth stealing you generally will be left alone. I'm lucky enough to live in a great neighborhood with almost zero crime.

I live next to a private beach so i go for walks/runs everyday. I don't know what point yor're trying to make with that comment, but i assume you are trying to accuse me of being someone who needs to get out of the house as if i have no life. Look at my post count. I barely post on here, and almost never post in the war room. I think including these posts i've made maybe 10 posts in the war room in my lifetime. I have nothing against you and i'm done arguing with you since you obviously can't provide proof or a source and are now resorting to making assumptions about me. Have a nice day.

EDIT: And Jack with the smackdown on someone who is trying to backtrack and can't handle being called on their bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You insist on twisting my words, when I obviously didn't mean what you have repeatedly said I did. Why? What's weird is that we are actually close to agreement on this issue, but your creepy personal vendetta against me blinds you from seeing that.

I've never twisted any of your words. What would the point be in that? I'm here to discuss ideas, and that means ideas that people actually hold.

Not sure how you can say we're close to agreement when you called me an "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." In fact, my positions have changed on the issue over time as I've had different ideas of how MW actually affects people, as I've described.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I've never twisted any of your words. What would the point be in that? I'm here to discuss ideas, and that means ideas that people actually hold.

I don't know what point you find in that. But you've twice in this thread insinuated I have a negative view toward liberals as relates to minimum wage. I do not. You twisted my words to get such a meaning and I've pointed out twice to you that you are obviously misinterpreting my words. Once was a mistake anyone could have made. Twice a person as careful as you purport to be with the truth could not be a mistake. It's libel. Please stop.

I'm far from doctrinaire on minimum wage. I think it is a good idea, but when over zealously implemented, it can be counterproductive. This is why i described both the raising of the minimum wage in Seattle and the lowering of the minimum wage in St. Louis as experiments. I also expect both to have mixed results.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens said he will allow a bill that will repeal St. Louis' minimum wage to become law without his signature.

Greitens announced that he will not sign the bill, which creates a standard statewide minimum wage, but that the measure will go into law automatically Aug. 28 without his signature. Under the law, St. Louis' $10 an hour minimum wage will revert back to the statewide minimum wage of $7.70 an hour.

"Our state needs more private sector paychecks and bigger private sector paychecks," Greitens said in a statement about his decision to let the bill become law. "Politicians in St. Louis passed a bill that fails on both counts: it will kill jobs, and despite what you hear from liberals, it will take money out of people's pockets."

"This increase in the minimum wage might read pretty on paper, but it doesn't work in practice," Greitens said.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1 issued a statement saying the bill will take money out of the pockets of tens of thousands of working people.

"For me and so many others, that means going back to living paycheck to paycheck," Sierra Parker, an SEIU janitor, said in a statement released by the union.


https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis...ealing-st-louis-minimum-wage-increase-to.html



So let me get this straight, you joined a union and the best you could do was Minimum wage???? You got fucking jobbed.

Are you a union worker, how much do you get paid? Any benefits?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Minimum wage is 'the working class'?

So what are they "untouchables", how much do you need to earn to be considered working class?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

SMH

Get a sales job, earn as much as you put in.

Hey lets give all lazy fucks free money, as long as its not from your wallet right ?

liberal are real giving with other peoples money.

let me guess, your hero is this guy.

[/QUOTE]
You mean those lazy fucks that work 60 to 80 hours a week at minimum wage just to earn enough to pay the bills?