(04-09-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My eldest grandson was a Sanders-ista. I was happy to hear he was working for Sanders, actually participating in the process instead of just damning it. Mainly it was because he was a minimum wage worker and Sanders wanted the $15 MW. The main reason he was still a MW worker six years after HS graduation was that he didn't want to help make "The Man" rich.

Another very likely reason that he is still a minimum wage worker, as opposed to an unemployed former minimum wage worker, is that the minimum wage is not $15.

I always wonder when comments like this are brought up. Is it so much better that we have a glut of low, non-living wage minimum-wage jobs as opposed to fewer, living-wage minimum-wage jobs? In the current paradigm we have people who are working 40+ hours a week and not able to provide a decent, not extravagant, life for them and their families. Is that really what we want society to be? These people are adding value in their job, after all. And shouldn't we make sure that those who are willing to work are rewarded for the effort? Currently, that doesn't happen.

Is it really that much better that we have an economy full of jobs that don't allow people to earn a living wage while adding some value to the economy, as opposed to the other situation? At least if we had mass unemployment/poverty that may be caused by an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage, that we would be compelled to try and fix the problem, and possibly move towards a universal income type system.

At some point, robots will be taking over plenty of these jobs, regardless of how high the minimum wage is.

The raising of the minimum wage speeds that type of job destruction.

10 years ago kiosk technology was in a state of 'neat idea, stupid economically'. Thanks to the Democrats and the jihad to 15 MW, the shares I got in kiosk makers for side work are doing *very* nicely -- had two of those companies bought out lock stock and barrel in the last three years.

Funny how the 15 MW jihad is actually exacerbating the 'immoral' wealth transfer in that respect; especially when the MW (whatever it is) in the long run is utterly meaningless.

But Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand that in the short term that quixotic quest actually massively speeds job destruction for the people that tend to vote that way (for the most part). The companies that sold, the CEO of one of them quipped that the MW quest of the last four years was the best thing that ever happened to them --- it gave them a short term window to replace people with their product. He also quipped that he was responsible for the 'destruction' of over 200,000 jobs, based on his sales, and the liberals gave him the opportunity to do so.

Actually, back that up. I shouldnt assume that the issue is 'not understanding' that they are complicit in the massive job destruction that they have given the opportunity for -- another plausible explanation is that the MW is a *great* feelly-goody issue they can rail about and get short term benefits (i.e. votes) all while completely understanding the opportunity this has given the marketplace to speed the destruction of the jobs of those whom they are courting the votes of. Equally as likely....

So liberals and progressives, thanks a ton for the 10x parlay of time for money in this instance. Really do appreciate it!

Edited to add: any discussion about the advantages of MW are utterly baseless on the economics. Any first year microeconomics course has that wonderful two day part of the book that sows why rent controls and price controls are actually quite bad and destructive at the worst, and not effectual at the theoretical best. But it is really interesting that that freshmen level concept never seems to be applied to the most pervasive price control in existence -- the MW. Same applies to the other liberal MW djinn dressed up as the pretty moniker 'living wage'.