4 ms·

Because you're jesus smuggling extremely flawed assumptions through your question. e.g. If you don't kill every 3rd cute puppy born, all the pandas in the worl

Because you're jesus smuggling extremely flawed assumptions through your question. e.g. If you don't kill every 3rd cute puppy born, all the pandas in the world will face gruesome deaths. Do you want all the pandas in the world to die gruesomely @grecy? If "being paid less tomorrow" is caused by inflation, wouldn't it make more sense to tackle the root causes of inflation? Because its really odd that the only feasible solution you guys have on the table is to double down on Byzantine regulations and Federal Soylent™. Idk maybe we should instead: - Get rid of minimum wage - Get rid of excessive OSHA, SEC, FDA, EPA, FTC rules etc - Maybe we don't an extra 80,000 IRS agents. - Since its not the cold war anymore, maybe we don't 18 different intelligence agencies - Maybe we should replace all welfare and entitlements with an "essentials" program where "if your poor, you failed but we help you not starve or die of a treatable illness, however it comes with strings attached". - Maybe we should look into how the military is extremely corrupt and inefficient. Why is the F-35 built so many different states, how did we run out munitions so quickly, why will it take that long to replenish it?

grecy 3y ago
> Because you're jesus smuggling I honestly don't even know what that means. Also attacking me doesn't help your argument - it makes you look like you already know you don't have anything productive to add, so you just attack me instead of productively discussing the topic at hand. > If "being paid less tomorrow" is caused by inflation, wouldn't it make more sense to tackle the root causes of inflation? Are you suggesting the US should just have 0 inflation? White I'm not an expert, I believe economists consider inflation to be a good and healthy thing for an economy. Also no country or economy in the world has ever had 0 inflation, so you're talking about doing something that has never been done before. Seems odd. > Idk maybe we should instead: - Get rid of minimum wage - Get rid of excessive OSHA, SEC, FDA, EPA, FTC rules etc - Maybe we don't an extra 80,000 IRS agents. - Since its not the cold war anymore, maybe we don't 18 different intelligence agencies - Maybe we should replace all welfare and entitlements with an "essentials" program where "if your poor, you failed but we help you not starve or die of a treatable illness, however it comes with strings attached". - Maybe we should look into how the military is extremely corrupt and inefficient. Why is the F-35 built so many different states, how did we run out munitions so quickly, why will it take that long to replenish it? Sure, you could attempt to do all those things. How long do you think that will take? How much push back? Other countries don't need to invent "never been done" solutions and completely change their entire society to solve this, why does the US? You could spend decades attempting to do all that, or you could raise the minimum wage. It seems like you want to suggest solutions that are 500,000 times harder than a solution that actually works. Are you actually interested in fixing the problem, or are you interested in making everything much more complicated than it needs to be?
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  > attacking me doesn't help your argument Wasn't my intention, I was trying explain how answering yes or no would be a tacid admission to the claims smuggled in your question. I don't even think its intentional. > It seems like you want to suggest solutions that are 500,000 times harder I agree but the alternative is even worse in my opinion. Yes it will work in the short term but check always comes due and it comes with a vengeance when you mess with reality. This was the main messahe in all my previous posts. Re-organising society in such a way has massive unintended consequences. Just like the human body, societies are very resilient but at some point it breaks and we are the breaking point. All it will take is a few more straws. P.S. > economists consider inflation to be good and healthy I'm not an expert either but from what I understand, macro-economics is basically astrology for intellectuals but worse. There are different schools (keynesian, austrian, MMT, marxist etc) and the Keynesians won the roll of the dice. IMO very silly. The entire premise is wrong. Both inflation and deflation are good or bad depending on the context. Its was never meant to wielded handful of people selected by a guy who won a popularity contest. Idk if you've seen the world of warcraft movie (Warcraft), there is a type of magic in the movie called fell. Its offers a lot power at great cost. Thats artificial inflation/deflation (easing/tightening). In the movie, you see the villain (Gul'dan) wielding fell by extracting the life force of people, thats exactly what happens when Jeremy (Fed chair) increases/decreases the rates or when a trillion dollars gets printed.
  - grecy 3y ago
    > I agree but the alternative is even worse in my opinion You think raising the minimum wage is harder than trying to completely change how the government spends money and getting to zero inflation?
    - pc_edwin 3y ago
      TLDR: It will be exponentially easier to pass (even federally) than any prescriptions I've suggested. That said, my point was the consequence of such a law would be much worse than doing nothing. Long Version: If we did nothing, inflation will effectively bring the current minimum wage down to zero given enough time. Whereas if we set a federal minimum wage of $25/hr (current inflation adjusted), it will have disastrous downstream consequences. I've touched on this in my OP. You are dictating by fiat that every human must have a minimum economic value of X. You'll be de-facto robbing a huge chunk of the population of an honest life with dignity and prohibiting any types/classes of businesses that rely on unskilled/low value labor. Also if you study history you realise its exactly these types of laws that create black markets and racketeering. Similar to lets say cannabis, you cant just wish the demand away.. It gets even worse, when you do this by industry like the California law. The state basically becomes the kingmaker. Its just a bunch of euphemisms for basically putting their thumb on the scale against large fast food chains.

grecy 3y ago

> Because you're jesus smuggling I honestly don't even know what that means. Also attacking me doesn't help your argument - it makes you look like you already know you don't have anything productive to add, so you just attack me instead of productively discussing the topic at hand. > If "being paid less tomorrow" is caused by inflation, wouldn't it make more sense to tackle the root causes of inflation? Are you suggesting the US should just have 0 inflation? White I'm not an expert, I believe economists consider inflation to be a good and healthy thing for an economy. Also no country or economy in the world has ever had 0 inflation, so you're talking about doing something that has never been done before. Seems odd. > Idk maybe we should instead: - Get rid of minimum wage - Get rid of excessive OSHA, SEC, FDA, EPA, FTC rules etc - Maybe we don't an extra 80,000 IRS agents. - Since its not the cold war anymore, maybe we don't 18 different intelligence agencies - Maybe we should replace all welfare and entitlements with an "essentials" program where "if your poor, you failed but we help you not starve or die of a treatable illness, however it comes with strings attached". - Maybe we should look into how the military is extremely corrupt and inefficient. Why is the F-35 built so many different states, how did we run out munitions so quickly, why will it take that long to replenish it? Sure, you could attempt to do all those things. How long do you think that will take? How much push back? Other countries don't need to invent "never been done" solutions and completely change their entire society to solve this, why does the US? You could spend decades attempting to do all that, or you could raise the minimum wage. It seems like you want to suggest solutions that are 500,000 times harder than a solution that actually works. Are you actually interested in fixing the problem, or are you interested in making everything much more complicated than it needs to be?

pc_edwin 3y ago
> attacking me doesn't help your argument Wasn't my intention, I was trying explain how answering yes or no would be a tacid admission to the claims smuggled in your question. I don't even think its intentional. > It seems like you want to suggest solutions that are 500,000 times harder I agree but the alternative is even worse in my opinion. Yes it will work in the short term but check always comes due and it comes with a vengeance when you mess with reality. This was the main messahe in all my previous posts. Re-organising society in such a way has massive unintended consequences. Just like the human body, societies are very resilient but at some point it breaks and we are the breaking point. All it will take is a few more straws. P.S. > economists consider inflation to be good and healthy I'm not an expert either but from what I understand, macro-economics is basically astrology for intellectuals but worse. There are different schools (keynesian, austrian, MMT, marxist etc) and the Keynesians won the roll of the dice. IMO very silly. The entire premise is wrong. Both inflation and deflation are good or bad depending on the context. Its was never meant to wielded handful of people selected by a guy who won a popularity contest. Idk if you've seen the world of warcraft movie (Warcraft), there is a type of magic in the movie called fell. Its offers a lot power at great cost. Thats artificial inflation/deflation (easing/tightening). In the movie, you see the villain (Gul'dan) wielding fell by extracting the life force of people, thats exactly what happens when Jeremy (Fed chair) increases/decreases the rates or when a trillion dollars gets printed.
- grecy 3y ago
  > I agree but the alternative is even worse in my opinion You think raising the minimum wage is harder than trying to completely change how the government spends money and getting to zero inflation?
  - pc_edwin 3y ago
    TLDR: It will be exponentially easier to pass (even federally) than any prescriptions I've suggested. That said, my point was the consequence of such a law would be much worse than doing nothing. Long Version: If we did nothing, inflation will effectively bring the current minimum wage down to zero given enough time. Whereas if we set a federal minimum wage of $25/hr (current inflation adjusted), it will have disastrous downstream consequences. I've touched on this in my OP. You are dictating by fiat that every human must have a minimum economic value of X. You'll be de-facto robbing a huge chunk of the population of an honest life with dignity and prohibiting any types/classes of businesses that rely on unskilled/low value labor. Also if you study history you realise its exactly these types of laws that create black markets and racketeering. Similar to lets say cannabis, you cant just wish the demand away.. It gets even worse, when you do this by industry like the California law. The state basically becomes the kingmaker. Its just a bunch of euphemisms for basically putting their thumb on the scale against large fast food chains.