4 ms·

Republicans acctually did try to anticipate this problem with an amendment but Democrats pushed it through. [1] I don't know how long an amendment would delay

Republicans acctually did try to anticipate this problem with an amendment but Democrats pushed it through. [1] I don't know how long an amendment would delay the bill, but depending on the time period an argument could be made that this was intentional. Yes, if this was going to delay the bill a few weeks, it probably was just rejected to get it out, but if it would be a few days I think it would be reasonable to consider it. [2] https://www.vox.com/2020/3/25/21194278/lindsey-graham-coronavirus-stimulus https://www.vox.com/2020/3/25/21194278/lindsey-graham-corona...

mitchdoogle 6y ago
If the Republicans had held up the bill, then Democrats would've pushed on less corporate bailouts. It's the same argument they always have.. who matters more, big business or individuals?
- entropea 6y ago
  Who consumes the products?
adamsea 6y ago
Just to nitpick a bit with language I dont think "problem" is the right word. The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Not saying you necessarily disagree. I think language has a tangible and often unconscious impact on our thought porcess so wanted to point it out. In America, large companies should be required by law to pay their employees a living wage. Its not OK for working people to be food insecure, unable to save for retirement or their childrens education, etc. Id say that is the root problem.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Economists pretty much across the board disagree with you. If you don’t allow companies to pay market rate for low-value labor, they’re simply not going to hire those people at all. They’re not going to lose money paying $15/hr (or whatever) for a job that only nets them half that. All a “minimum wage” law actually does is eliminate categories of employment available to people with low skills or ability. You’re not helping those people by unemploying them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - adamsea 6y ago
    If you want to ignore the moral implications of my statement, go right ahead.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    What do economists have to say say about the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage? From what you said it seems they're fine with lawless favelas as long as the strawberries get to the markets the economists shop at. Your position that people are hurt by not having access to what is essentially slavery, because that is precisely what you're advocating for here, hurts people is absurd. Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you take your considerable privilege for granted without even appreciating it.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      > the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage? You’ve obviously not grasped the point - these people are not paid “less than minimum wage” - they are paid nothing, zero, because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth. > Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most. > you take your considerable privilege for granted Chastising me doesn’t work - try again with a reasonable economic/utilitarian argument. Thus far you haven’t said anything to suggest you’re approaching this from any kind of reasonable framework.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        >they are paid nothing, zero, Incorrect. Disability, social security, etc are payments. Payments that we all bear when people, rightfully, opt out of this oppressive, toxic, dog eat dog workforce. Or worse, when someone's body is sacrificed for the sake of profits. If you're getting rid of minimum wage you should probably get rid of all social safety nets to deal with perverse incentives. >because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth. eesh. Let's play out what happens when you treat human beings like livestock, from living memory: We get the company town(1). We get China's foxconn suicides(2). We get slave labor camps (active in China and the United states, like today, right now(3,4)). Then, or concurrently we get death camps for the infirm(5); if we can't hope to pay even a subsistence wage for all labor then how can we possibly allow these parasites to live on, homeless and impoverished, with the ills those kind bring to a civilized land. >No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most. That's merely a point of debate, not a fact, as you suggest(6). In light of the cited history I've outlined, I would argue that such an argument is debunked and does not merit further discussion without extraordinary evidence. In regards to your last statement. What you've arguing for has been tried before, and is explained, with citations, for you to read at your leisure, on the Wikipedia page for minimum wage. I beg that you take a cursory examination of the available history and literature. I would rather like to avoid repeating the bloody mistakes of history. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides 3. prisoners, many due to racist laws under the guise of paternalism(see paternalism from (1)). 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps 5. https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/disabled-people/ https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocid... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

mitchdoogle 6y ago

If the Republicans had held up the bill, then Democrats would've pushed on less corporate bailouts. It's the same argument they always have.. who matters more, big business or individuals?

entropea 6y ago
Who consumes the products?

adamsea 6y ago

Just to nitpick a bit with language I dont think "problem" is the right word. The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Not saying you necessarily disagree. I think language has a tangible and often unconscious impact on our thought porcess so wanted to point it out. In America, large companies should be required by law to pay their employees a living wage. Its not OK for working people to be food insecure, unable to save for retirement or their childrens education, etc. Id say that is the root problem.

centimeter 6y ago
> The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Economists pretty much across the board disagree with you. If you don’t allow companies to pay market rate for low-value labor, they’re simply not going to hire those people at all. They’re not going to lose money paying $15/hr (or whatever) for a job that only nets them half that. All a “minimum wage” law actually does is eliminate categories of employment available to people with low skills or ability. You’re not helping those people by unemploying them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- adamsea 6y ago
  If you want to ignore the moral implications of my statement, go right ahead.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  What do economists have to say say about the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage? From what you said it seems they're fine with lawless favelas as long as the strawberries get to the markets the economists shop at. Your position that people are hurt by not having access to what is essentially slavery, because that is precisely what you're advocating for here, hurts people is absurd. Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you take your considerable privilege for granted without even appreciating it.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage? You’ve obviously not grasped the point - these people are not paid “less than minimum wage” - they are paid nothing, zero, because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth. > Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most. > you take your considerable privilege for granted Chastising me doesn’t work - try again with a reasonable economic/utilitarian argument. Thus far you haven’t said anything to suggest you’re approaching this from any kind of reasonable framework.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      >they are paid nothing, zero, Incorrect. Disability, social security, etc are payments. Payments that we all bear when people, rightfully, opt out of this oppressive, toxic, dog eat dog workforce. Or worse, when someone's body is sacrificed for the sake of profits. If you're getting rid of minimum wage you should probably get rid of all social safety nets to deal with perverse incentives. >because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth. eesh. Let's play out what happens when you treat human beings like livestock, from living memory: We get the company town(1). We get China's foxconn suicides(2). We get slave labor camps (active in China and the United states, like today, right now(3,4)). Then, or concurrently we get death camps for the infirm(5); if we can't hope to pay even a subsistence wage for all labor then how can we possibly allow these parasites to live on, homeless and impoverished, with the ills those kind bring to a civilized land. >No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most. That's merely a point of debate, not a fact, as you suggest(6). In light of the cited history I've outlined, I would argue that such an argument is debunked and does not merit further discussion without extraordinary evidence. In regards to your last statement. What you've arguing for has been tried before, and is explained, with citations, for you to read at your leisure, on the Wikipedia page for minimum wage. I beg that you take a cursory examination of the available history and literature. I would rather like to avoid repeating the bloody mistakes of history. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides 3. prisoners, many due to racist laws under the guise of paternalism(see paternalism from (1)). 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps 5. https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/disabled-people/ https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocid... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage