missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[funinspace]

At the end of the day, the Libertarians get in their Jeep Wrangler and drive to private property which has a high market value because the government included it in the major infrastructure plan.

But will I still be able to put pineapples in the back, if I only have a Grand Wagoneer?

 

[prideandfall]

I consider it a shame that economic conservatism and social conservatism are so often found together

on this we agree, but that's the natural state of political evolution - because there comes a point where economic policy IS social policy in a lot of areas, because of the social impact of economics.
i mean, there's a reason the word 'socioeconomic' is so ubiquitous that my browser spellcheck just recognized it as a valid word.

this is especially true when you're dealing economic policy that directly impacts the daily lives of people on the lower rungs of the social ladder.

 

[Elixir]

You think there are people who say "this measure will fuck over the poor, therefore I support it"?

Maybe not in Missouri, but definitely in DC.
Isn't it rather obvious that Cheato's solution to poverty is to wipe out poor people?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one is going to chase these stupid red herrings. Previously the economy was supporting the wage level and unemployment was at a record low. And the republican government intervened and lowered the minimum wage. We (progressives) are being asked to try to understand the conservative position - so again I ask why is this some sort of great policy?

Continuing to assert that we should raise the min wage it to $1000 answers none of my questions, nor provides any insight as to why conservatives wanted to intervene into a functional economy and cause harm where the benefits seem minimal to non-existent.

I would instead argue that I am taking the conservative position. "If it ain't broke, then the government better intervene and "fix" it before it's too late" is a position that conservatives consistently rail against. Why not now?

aa

Your question is a nonsensical red herring.

If raising the minimum wage has no harmful effects, a $1000 minimum wage can't hurt the economy.

Dude, if taking Vitamin B6 has no harmful effects, then why can't you take 300 times the recommended dosage?

 

[dismal]

Your question is a nonsensical red herring.

If raising the minimum wage has no harmful effects, a $1000 minimum wage can't hurt the economy.

Dude, if taking Vitamin B6 has no harmful effects, then why can't you take 300 times the recommended dosage?

Not sure I understand how this analogy would apply to the minimum wage, as it has no harmful effects.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I consider it a shame that economic conservatism and social conservatism are so often found together

on this we agree, but that's the natural state of political evolution - because there comes a point where economic policy IS social policy in a lot of areas, because of the social impact of economics.
i mean, there's a reason the word 'socioeconomic' is so ubiquitous that my browser spellcheck just recognized it as a valid word.

this is especially true when you're dealing economic policy that directly impacts the daily lives of people on the lower rungs of the social ladder.

So do you think the statement "you oppose raising minimum wage so therefore you hate gays" is a reasonable statement?

You think there are people who say "this measure will fuck over the poor, therefore I support it"?

Maybe not in Missouri, but definitely in DC.
Isn't it rather obvious that Cheato's solution to poverty is to wipe out poor people?

But does he rub his hands together while cackling evilly when suggesting his policies?

 

[prideandfall]

So do you think the statement "you oppose raising minimum wage so therefore you hate gays" is a reasonable statement?

i think that there is no rational way anyone could determine just what the hell it is you're talking about, because you're still stuck on this ridiculous notion that you can attack what you perceive to be a moral judgment about a topic that you clearly can't, won't, or don't want to engage in - which is that conservative politics in the US are based around fucking over the poor and minorities.

i don't get why you take such umbrage over this fact or why you want to keep pretending like you can paint me into a corner with some kind of guilt about it when it's a completely non-applicable concept to what i'm talking about.

But does he rub his hands together while cackling evilly when suggesting his policies?

nobody has ever suggested this sort of behavior except for you, so i don't see why anyone should be expected to answer this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, if taking Vitamin B6 has no harmful effects, then why can't you take 300 times the recommended dosage?

Not sure I understand how this analogy would apply to the minimum wage, as it has no harmful effects.

Yeah, that seems to be your problem.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your question is a nonsensical red herring.

If raising the minimum wage has no harmful effects, a $1000 minimum wage can't hurt the economy.

Dude, if taking Vitamin B6 has no harmful effects, then why can't you take 300 times the recommended dosage?

Because there is a mechanism that describes what happens when B6 or other vitamins and what happens. No such mechanism has been explained by the supporters of minimum wage. There would be a laffer curve for min wage supporters.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

No one is going to chase these stupid red herrings. Previously the economy was supporting the wage level and unemployment was at a record low. And the republican government intervened and lowered the minimum wage. We (progressives) are being asked to try to understand the conservative position - so again I ask why is this some sort of great policy?

Continuing to assert that we should raise the min wage it to $1000 answers none of my questions, nor provides any insight as to why conservatives wanted to intervene into a functional economy and cause harm where the benefits seem minimal to non-existent.

I would instead argue that I am taking the conservative position. "If it ain't broke, then the government better intervene and "fix" it before it's too late" is a position that conservatives consistently rail against. Why not now?

aa

Your question is a nonsensical red herring.

If raising the minimum wage has no harmful effects, a $1000 minimum wage can't hurt the economy.

All you have to do is find an instance of someone arguing the hypothesis (raising the minimum wage has no harmful effects) in a thread about lowering the minimum wage and your conclusion would be true.

In fact, you are the only one arguing it. That's why your argument (and not mine) is a red herring.

aa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ksen]

Not really surprised a libertarian is more concerned about how people in power fucking over the poor are having their motives maligned than the fact that people in power are using their power to fuck over the poor.

It matters if you want to understand them or convince them to change their view, and win them to your side for elections etc. It matters if you want to to anything but feel morally superior to them.

It matters because if they are not really doing it as evil cartoon characters twirling mustaches and rubbing their hands together, but for some other misguided reason, you have a chance to make a difference by understanding what that misguided reason is. By dismissing them as evil you give up that opportunity. Ironically, this used to be the liberal approach and branding people evil used to be the territory of the political right.

I don't know if you've noticed it or not but in the US the Right has been killing it at the voting booth over the past decade or so. They've been able to do that, in part, by throwing as much crazy shit at liberals and the liberals haven't called them out on it and have suffered at the local, state and federal levels.

The GOP is knowingly trying their hardest to pass healthcare legislation they know will result in millions more people not having insurance and tens of thousands of needless deaths. What's their response when that's pointed out to them? They claim, with a straight face, that millions won't be losing their health insurance instead millions will just choose not to buy it once being freed from Obamacare.

I'm not a moral relativist so I'm comfortable saying that's evil.

I'm also not going to shed many tears for people claiming mean things about the GOP. Where were these pearl clutchers when Obama was in office and conservatives were viciously attacking him and attributing all sorts of evil motives to him and to democrats?

Now they're going to cry when someone turns around and does it to them? Too fucking bad.

 

[Elixir]

on this we agree, but that's the natural state of political evolution - because there comes a point where economic policy IS social policy in a lot of areas, because of the social impact of economics.
i mean, there's a reason the word 'socioeconomic' is so ubiquitous that my browser spellcheck just recognized it as a valid word.

this is especially true when you're dealing economic policy that directly impacts the daily lives of people on the lower rungs of the social ladder.

So do you think the statement "you oppose raising minimum wage so therefore you hate gays" is a reasonable statement?

You think there are people who say "this measure will fuck over the poor, therefore I support it"?

Maybe not in Missouri, but definitely in DC.
Isn't it rather obvious that Cheato's solution to poverty is to wipe out poor people?

But does he rub his hands together while cackling evilly when suggesting his policies?

No, surely he weeps in deep empathy for those whom he has fucked over. Because that's the kinda guy he is, right?
...in some alternate universe. Maybe.

In fact Cheato has no time for evil cackles - there are so many incoherent tweets to tweet, so many fake news outlets telling the truth about him, so many millions of illegal voers to chase down, Obama is wiretapping him again and ... who the fuck cares who he kills? They're just lazy incompetent poor people, right?!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, if taking Vitamin B6 has no harmful effects, then why can't you take 300 times the recommended dosage?

Because there is a mechanism that describes what happens when B6 or other vitamins and what happens. No such mechanism has been explained by the supporters of minimum wage. There would be a laffer curve for min wage supporters.

You haven't heard about inflation?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because there is a mechanism that describes what happens when B6 or other vitamins and what happens. No such mechanism has been explained by the supporters of minimum wage. There would be a laffer curve for min wage supporters.

You haven't heard about inflation?

Yes, but nobody has said what mechanism there would be and where it would become harmful

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You haven't heard about inflation?

Yes, but nobody has said what mechanism there would be and where it would become harmful

When it drives up inflation too high. Seriously, did you just get unfrozen or something?

 

[ksen]

If MW is bad for the economy why don't dettactors claim it'll cause a recession instead of inflation?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, but nobody has said what mechanism there would be and where it would become harmful

When it drives up inflation too high. Seriously, did you just get unfrozen or something?

So if we raised it to $100 an hour the only problem would be inflation? Why wouldn't the raise in pay outpace inflation?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When it drives up inflation too high. Seriously, did you just get unfrozen or something?

So if we raised it to $100 an hour the only problem would be inflation? Why wouldn't the raise in pay outpace inflation?

Dude, look it up yourself. I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the obvious.

 

[Bronzeage]

oh absolutely they do not - because their worldview is predicated on seeing things that aren't there and not seeing things that are.
that's the entire foundation of religion, and it's become the foundation of modern conservative politics in the US.

Do you think they might see consequences that you do not see?

i have no doubt that they hallucinate a whole giant host of things that i don't see, like for example that white straight christian males are an oppressed minority.

I was right, you would not be able to answer the questions I posted.

Now I like you you're trying to take an economic discussion, and include social issues. I consider it a shame that economic conservatism and social conservatism are so often found together, and economic liberalism and economic liberalism are so often found together, but that doesn't mean that you should run to social issues if you're having a problem with an economic issue.

"If you don't agree with raising minimum wage it is because you hate gays." Doesn't work, really.

Agreed, this wouldn't even be a debate except for excess government intervention in the economy.

The problem with that is people like paved streets and sewers.

Which can only be provided by government?

They've been spoiled by what collective action can do to make life easier, and even though the "I did it my way" crowd calls them slaves, they know those guys are full of shit.

Yep, if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. That fallacy needs a name.

How many sewer pipes have you installed? How many roads have you paved? How many bridges have you built?

The fallacy you are looking for is the "If I can imagine pie in the sky, it's as real as the things really happen."

 

[Sarpedon]

Could you imagine driving across town and having to pay five different tolls?
That is absolutely what it would take to get private companies to pave roads.

And you know how nowadays sewers are located beneath the streets? How would that work with privately owned streets? Would the sewers have to be built on their own privately owned land? How would you connect with them, if you aren't on the same side of the privately owned street?

You see, you are constantly giving me the impression that you don't think things through.