we have a few outrageous demands

I love when people think those fighting for higher wages are poor. I'm doing great myself, going into policing great pay and benefits and a pension that you collect after 20-25 years, unlike others though im not selfish who only care what they get out of society.

Edit BTW Europe is socialist and has a much better standard of living then the US.

 

That's a given. No one has disputed that- it's axiomatic.

That's not math, nor is that scientific.

That's isn't why laws were invented. Laws were invented to enforce a ruler's will. It was in ancient Egypt iirc, or maybe Sumeria.

It can be argued that after the divine right of kings laws purpose was evolved for dispute resolution. I think differently, as most laws aren't about dispute resolution anymore and there are better methods.

Again, this is axiomatic and was never disputed, it was an assumption on your part.

As I said, you implied it, although you may not knew how to express it.

Seems like you replied anyway.

 

This isn't about the minimum wage. This is about a 'living wage'- trying to make all jobs pay enough to live on. Not at all the same thing. Come back when you want to address the topic of the discussion you inserted yourself into instead of just build ridiculous strawmen.

 

The only difference between free market capitalism and feudalism is who lords over you.

The minimum wage was intended to be a living wage. FDR said it himself.

 

I want the market to dictate worth, and I want people to sustain themselves at a minimum.

Amazing concept.

 

1) A capitalist democracy (ie, free market capitalism) is the ONLY system which allows you to choose whether you'll be a Lord or a Peasant. Would you prefer a system which forces you into peasantry whether you like it or not? Or would you prefer a system which allows you the freedom to choose? And for the record, an advanced Welfare State is way more 'feudal' than free market capitalism, because it creates a society of workers and non-workers .. where the workers must slave to support the non-workers.

2) It doesn't matter what was 'intended', human nature will out.

 

And thus FDR is demonstrated yet again to be a hack.

 

How? He gave the country 40 years of a flourishing middle class. Reagan ruined it.

 

Do a search on my handle. I've laid it out many times.

 

Since the topic has been about consensual contracts, somehow those consensual contracts in dispute need to be resolved.

Without rules/laws etc, it comes down to who has more might to settle a dispute in your world, it would seem.

What is your plan to settle a dispute after consensual agreement.
As this is the only part we've been discussing.

 

You were talking about minimum pay. Pay = wage in my book.

And the reason for min wages is to create a floor to living wages.

 

Granted, I am only going by your post, and the quote of Derideo_Te, that you included with it, but if you were contending that business does not contribute as much to Republicans as it does to Democrats, because its contributions are only meant as inducement for the politicians to, "allow the free market to have its way," that, I think is blatantly false, and I know it is something that demands reference documentation.

The two parts of that which could use clarification, are, first, your translation for letting the free market have its way-- because the American system, created in response to the will of the people, is most definitely NOT a completely UNREGULATED "free market." If your words are meant to imply that business would hope for regulations that benefit themselves, and a lack of regulations which they find not to their liking, perhaps even an ignoring of when the given business breaks some rules, well then you are correct about that.

However, historically, that has not meant lower contributions to the Republican Party than the Democratic one. If your contention is currently the case--of which claim, to be honest, I am dubious-- it would be due to nothing other than Republicans' recent affinity for anti-democratic actions. While democracy may entail more red-tape than business cares for, it is nonetheless highly preferred, by most, to autocracy. But, since there are some wealthy titans of business who are unbothered, or even in accord with authoritarian methods, if they desire the same aim, I would imagine that losses in contributions from some particular companies are probably made up for, by increased contributions from others. But, again, to make any accurate statement about recent changes in overall corporate Party funding, one would need cite data, to be believable.

 

Reagan may have caused some damage to the middle class, but it's the 21stC Left which wants it dismantled entirely - despite their claims to the contrary.

 

How are the leftist policies going to hurt the middle class when they are copy paste from Europe which have flourishing middle class?

If you make Healthcare, College, and Daycare universal that is money that can be saved and spent on other things, raising the effective wages and putting more money back into the economy allowing for better jobs as demand for services rises.

$15 minimum wage means more money spent in local economies which in turn helps with development and higher wages.

The economy only works when money circulates. I'll do the math.

Bob makes 4K a month.

Expenses

1.5K rent
400 food
200 gas
200 utilities

2.5K spent on needs

He saves 500 in retirement funds

He now has 1K to spend on wants.

That 1K goes into the pockets of the businesses that provide the service or good. They then pay and or hire workers who in turn buy other wants and the cycle continues.

Hording money kills economies and defeats the purpose of money which is to give trade value (money) for a good or service and everyone agrees $1 is $1 everywhere.

 

Clean Air and Water: We already have that.
A Living Wage: What about struggling small businesses?
Medicare for all: That will cost 3 trillion a year. How do you suggest we pay for that?
Affordable Daycare and College: Do you mean affordable or free?
Equal Pay for Equal Work: How do you plan to enforce that?
Make Voting Easier: What measures would you do to combat fraud?
Sensible Gun Laws: Like what?
Invest in Infrastructure: Sure, but "human infrastructure" isn't infrastructure. Also, states need to pay a share.

 

1) The Welfare State is designed to create a massive underclass of dependent spenders. The middle classes have too much discretion to reject the Welfare State ideology AND avoid spending-to-survive. When you have a significant strata with that much independence, you can't control the citizenry anywhere near as much as you need to if you're set on a single politic with absolute power.

2) Here's my version of that math:

Bob makes 4K a month.

Expenses

1.5K rent - cancelled, because Bob had enough sense to buy property young, and pay it off fast.
400 food - Halved, because Bob has enough sense to both buy very cheap (and healthy) raw ingredients, AND supplement with home grown basics
200 gas - Cancelled or massively reduced, because Bob rides a bike, walks, or takes public transport
200 utilities - Halved, because Bob hates wasting money on 'comfort'

Let's say $500 spent on needs

He saves $3500 towards securing additional property for the purposes of income and his childrens' future security.

He now has $0 to spend on wants.

Bob gives the middle finger to those who insist he blow every cent he makes. The Corporate Monopolists and the Welfare Statists - who prefer to see him bankrupted by the spending behaviours they've conditioned him for, so they can both a) absorb all of his money, and b) 'save' him when he's broke - and thus keep him exactly where they want him.

Bob is NOT hoarding, he's buying property.

 

I understand these things much better than you.

We do not need more jobs right now, do we? We need more workers, don't we? Or don't you keep up with such things?

 

What on earth are you talking about?

I provided you with just what you asked for.

Stop posting as such a fool.

thanks

 

That reply was an imitation of you, obviously.

 

We need less govt handouts. The workers are being paid to not work.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

For context, the full discussion I was having with the poster to whom that reply was directed is available in this thread.

If that doesn't sufficiently ellaborate, then please ask me specifically what you would like elaborated.

 

In general, you might have a point, but these' handouts' were done owing to something that affected the entire nation, something that was beyond anyone's control, so, in that case, it was justified.

But, I will agree somewhat, because I've seen people use unemployment checks just to cruise, and the requirement to prove they were looking for work was being abused. Now, not everyone I know who has done that does that, but I've seen a few who have. The question is, how do we weed out those who use the checks as they are supposed to, to pay bills while they actively pursue looking for work, and those who abuse the system. Do we toss out the baby with the bath water and end a program that is beneficial just to prevent a few abusers from gaming the system? I think the argument is in there somewhere. But, what that argument needs are facts, i.e., what percentage are actual freeloaders? I'd need more than just some angry right winger pounding his fist on a bar top (not implying that is you, of course).

 

A more accurate measure would be - what percentage is not going to like the free lunch, and so will do everything in their power to give it up as quickly as possible. You and I both know that's a vanishingly tiny proportion .. because we're fallible humans, living in a specific culture and climate with very low levels of social and personal responsibility.

Of course, all of this is well understood by those lobbying for extensions and expansions. It must be, because educated and allegedly intelligent leaders could not possibly be stupid enough to think it wouldn't be a problem. Even my dog knows what happens when you make things easy for mammals hard wired to seek the path of least resistance.

 

The Negative Income Tax was proposed by the Libertarian economist, Milton Friedman.

He prefered that over a system which tells people what they must spend the money, that if there is going to be a welfare system,
at least allow people to spend the money as they wish, thus putting fewer 'government interferences' in the economy. See, this was more in keeping with his 'free to choose' philosophy, based on his book of the same title (Published I think in 1980)

This is elaborated here
https://medium.com/@P562/negative-income-tax-vs-universal-basic-income-610c91919812

You make assumptions about other's lifestyles, which you seem to think that taxes equal your money going someone else's account, someone who is lazy and it's a lot of cheeseburgers, which you don't want to pay for. You look at the subject through a highly partisan lens ( conservative/libertarian ), it's what I call a 'transactional' lens, a mercantilistic and anecdotal lens. I do believe I've countered this with you in some other post. If you don't recall, I'll repost it.