Social Minimum Wage now at $20 an hour in California

[Cuauhtemoc]

It's not 1:1 but it's only temporarily advantageous to MW workers when they get a large raise. Everything catches up quickly. Supply and demand. OPEC will certainly raise the price of oil when America now has a higher demand for it because more people have money in their pockets. Apartments and condos will certainly go up because you'll have a large influx of people who now need that type of housing. People who are rooming together will now go out and look for their own place.

It's just how capitalism is. It's a system where people capitalize on each other to get ahead. As soon as they get a pay bump, the rich will capitalize on it and gobble that extra money back up. It happens every time, which is why you never seen minimum wage earners get ahead.

People now drive their own cars and live in their own places, they're getting ahead.

 

[lsa]

I was not even aware that 40 was an option.

this changes every thing?

 

[terrapin]

What must be understood is that all humans are built differently. Everyone has their weaknesses, strengths, and limitations.

Not everyone is cut out to work their way up the corporate ladder, go in to business for themself, move in to management, etc. That doesn't mean that those types of people cannot be of value to society, or don't work hard. Indeed, if you think min wage workers are of limited value, this entire country would shut down if all min wage workers went on strike tomorrow. No more gas, grocery stores, delivery drivers, bank tellers, Amazon, and on and on.

The problem is that most corporate structures are too top heavy, meaning they pay their workers an absolute minimum and treat them as expendable so the officers and stockholders can make millions upon millions a year. I would like to see our corporate structures to be more treated like the Japanese. In Japan, the lowliest of the lowly workers are made to feel important and a necessary cog in the machine which does wonders for worker productivity and employee retention. In periods where budget cuts are necessary, it's the highest paid officers who absorb the reductions, unlike in America where those that can least afford it (min wage workers) take the hit.

You are in essence arguing that min wage workers are of no or little value, and we have to keep it that way so Bob McCEO can afford 3 vacation homes, a yacht, and more money than anyone would ever need in a lifetime. How about we raise min wage for people who are contributing to society and if expenses are too much Bob McCEO gives up a reduction in an almost ridiculous compensation package? Bob McCEO's life is not going to change if he is making $200,000 a month rather than $400,000 a month. And again, if you don't think those min wage workers are worth being paid a wage they can barely subsist on, I'd like you to ask yourself how successful WalMart or Amazon would be if all their min wage workers walked off the job nationwide tomorrow. Those businesses would screech to a grinding halt.

This is the best post in this thread by far in my opinion....

Reducing people's worth to what they produce in an economy is anti-human and deeply sinful from a religious perspective, which I realize no one is asking for....

What God is interested in is persons and the inherent dignity and value of those persons. Reducing them to cogs in a machine as to what they can produce in a system based on greed and selfishness is a despicable anti-human point of view and worldview.

I've been lucky enough to hang out with homeless people and people with profound mental illness and lots of people who cannot function in this world very well, and for the most part, they have all been incredibly wonderful to know and have enriched my life in profound ways.

To punish them for not fitting into a system based on greed and self-interest and profit is a very sick thing to do and it is morally and spiritually degenerate and bankrupt to do it.

The belief that everybody should put muxh of their attention and energy into being more economically successful is also an anti-human belief, an anti-god belief, and an anti-spirituality belief.

Only a society devoid of spiritual depth and wisdom could think this way and act this way. And Republicans have asked me on this forum why I'm still a Democrat when on social issues I often side with the right ( the non bigots at least). But it's really an easy answer. I expect from my government... economic balance and help and regulation. I do not expect morality imposition on others from my government.

The left are miles and miles ahead of the right in this respect.

 

[nostradumbass]

What must be understood is that all humans are built differently. Everyone has their weaknesses, strengths, and limitations.

Not everyone is cut out to work their way up the corporate ladder, go in to business for themself, move in to management, etc. That doesn't mean that those types of people cannot be of value to society, or don't work hard. Indeed, if you think min wage workers are of limited value, this entire country would shut down if all min wage workers went on strike tomorrow. No more gas, grocery stores, delivery drivers, bank tellers, Amazon, and on and on.

The problem is that most corporate structures are too top heavy, meaning they pay their workers an absolute minimum and treat them as expendable so the officers and stockholders can make millions upon millions a year. I would like to see our corporate structures to be more treated like the Japanese. In Japan, the lowliest of the lowly workers are made to feel important and a necessary cog in the machine which does wonders for worker productivity and employee retention. In periods where budget cuts are necessary, it's the highest paid officers who absorb the reductions, unlike in America where those that can least afford it (min wage workers) take the hit.

You are in essence arguing that min wage workers are of no or little value, and we have to keep it that way so Bob McCEO can afford 3 vacation homes, a yacht, and more money than anyone would ever need in a lifetime. How about we raise min wage for people who are contributing to society and if expenses are too much Bob McCEO gives up a reduction in an almost ridiculous compensation package? Bob McCEO's life is not going to change if he is making $200,000 a month rather than $400,000 a month. And again, if you don't think those min wage workers are worth being paid a wage they can barely subsist on, I'd like you to ask yourself how successful WalMart or Amazon would be if all their min wage workers walked off the job nationwide tomorrow. Those businesses would screech to a grinding halt.

It sounds like you haven't really done the math here. Nobody is a billionaire from having a shop with a few employees, Amazon and Walmart have over 1.6 million and 2.3 million employees, respectively. Bob McCEO going from 400,000/month to 200,000/month and spreading the difference among all the employees comes out to like 8-12 cents per employee for the entire month, or a little over a dollar for the year. The CEO could work for free and give his entire salary to the employees, and that would be like an extra $2 for the year for everyone. There is no amount you can reduce the CEO salary to pay the other employees a noticeable amount more because the CEO salary already isn't even a noticeable fraction of the labor costs.

Several of the jobs you mentioned aren't even minimum wage jobs. Truck drivers definitely don't make MW, and neither do bank tellers or amazon employees. MW wage jobs are just that, they are the minimum skill and responsibility a job can have, so saying "if they walked out" isn't even a hypothetical, MW employees no show, oversleep, get high and don't show up or walk out all the time. They're the easiest to replace.

The corporations things isn't really that relevant either. The work is the work and the pay is similar regardless of who it's for. A cook at a fast food place pays the same as doing the same thing in a school cafeteria, but one of them taco bell writes the checks, and the other the school district writes the checks.

Why can't you guys argue honestly? Why is it always a lie? Why do you guys always pretend we're arguing that everyone gets paid the same?

Lolwut? I though it was pretty clear that the $18k GDP per capita was in response to your "plenty for everyone". That is the impossible MOST everyone would make IF everyone was paid the same, so since they aren't, it necessarily implies that some people have to make less than that because some people make more than that. It is the impossible most because of course nobody would open any businesses in the first place if there was no upside in doing it. Thankfully there is incentive to do it, so people do.

 

[Gamer2k4]

Reducing people's worth to what they produce in an economy is anti-human and deeply sinful from a religious perspective, which I realize no one is asking for....

You're conflating the definitions of "worth" to make your argument. A person's worth as a human being is (or should be) completely distinct from their financial worth. I think we agree there, because that's the point you're trying to make. But since that's the case, the amount of money they make is irrelevant to their value as a human being - and the only way to make the argument you're making is to assume the two are one and the same. You're the one reducing their worth to what they produce, because otherwise there would be no point to be made.

I've been lucky enough to hang out with homeless people and people with profound mental illness and lots of people who cannot function in this world very well, and for the most part, they have all been incredibly wonderful to know and have enriched my life in profound ways.

To punish them for not fitting into a system based on greed and self-interest and profit is a very sick thing to do and it is morally and spiritually degenerate and bankrupt to do it.

The belief that everybody should put muxh of their attention and energy into being more economically successful is also an anti-human belief, an anti-god belief, and an anti-spirituality belief.

There's certainly a mandate for charity in Christianity, but there's also the expectation that anyone able to contribute does so. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12) There's also the message throughout the Bible that work is not only good, but important for living a fulfilling life. In modern times, yes, that means economic production. But even prior to capitalism, you'd be hard-pressed to find any functioning culture or society that didn't expect significant contribution from its members.

 

[terrapin]

It sounds like you haven't really done the math here. Nobody is a billionaire from having a shop with a few employees, Amazon and Walmart have over 1.6 million and 2.3 million employees, respectively. Bob McCEO going from 400,000/month to 200,000/month and spreading the difference among all the employees comes out to like 8-12 cents per employee for the entire month, or a little over a dollar for the year. The CEO could work for free and give his entire salary to the employees, and that would be like an extra $2 for the year for everyone. There is no amount you can reduce the CEO salary to pay the other employees a noticeable amount more because the CEO salary already isn't even a noticeable fraction of the labor costs.

Several of the jobs you mentioned aren't even minimum wage jobs. Truck drivers definitely don't make MW, and neither do bank tellers or amazon employees. MW wage jobs are just that, they are the minimum skill and responsibility a job can have, so saying "if they walked out" isn't even a hypothetical, MW employees no show, oversleep, get high and don't show up or walk out all the time. They're the easiest to replace.

The corporations things isn't really that relevant either. The work is the work and the pay is similar regardless of who it's for. A cook at a fast food place pays the same as doing the same thing in a school cafeteria, but one of them taco bell writes the checks, and the other the school district writes the checks.




a

Lolwut? I though it was pretty clear that the $18k GDP per capita was in response to your "plenty for everyone". That is the impossible MOST everyone would make IF everyone was paid the same, so since they aren't, it necessarily implies that some people have to make less than that because some people make more than that. It is the impossible most because of course nobody would open any businesses in the first place if there was no upside in doing it. Thankfully there is incentive to do it, so people do.

so you double down on the lie instead of arguing in good faith? I NEVER said everyone should be payed the same. why do you pretend so?

 

[terrapin]

You're conflating the definitions of "worth" to make your argument. A person's worth as a human being is (or should be) completely distinct from their financial worth. I think we agree there, because that's the point you're trying to make. But since that's the case, the amount of money they make is irrelevant to their value as a human being - and the only way to make the argument you're making is to assume the two are one and the same. You're the one reducing their worth to what they produce, because otherwise there would be no point to be made.



There's certainly a mandate for charity in Christianity, but there's also the expectation that anyone able to contribute does so. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12) There's also the message throughout the Bible that work is not only good, but important for living a fulfilling life. In modern times, yes, that means economic production. But even prior to capitalism, you'd be hard-pressed to find any functioning culture or society that didn't expect significant contribution from its members.

I NEVER argued for not working though..... but the value and dignity of a person FAR transcends what good they produce economically. our spiritually bankrupt society DOES reduce people's value to economic output degrading and disregarding the value of gods good creation. my comment must be taken in that context. the anti human devaluation of life itself and persons made in the image of God to being valued merely by economic output is deeply sinful.

also I did not conflate anything. our sick society does that when it reduces a person to their economic value and does not value and see gods good creation in them and it exploits the people leaste able to fit into that sinful exploitative system. it is profoundly evil when it does this.

does this match up with the gospel in your mind?

a man builds a business where he employs human beings at wages not conducive to a decent life in order to get rich? this violates EVERYTHING the gospel stands for including Jesus telling people NOT to seek out wealth! so the sin of seeking out wealth is attained by the exploitation of gods good creations and justified by saying those people are only worth what they are given and its their fault for not being more productive. that is definitely conflating two views of worth.

we save the souls of the wealthy by forcing them to pay living wages man.

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[RoastBeast]

First of all, don't pretend that great thinkers don't disagree with you and do agree with me.

Second of all you have not shown why all goods would go up and all services would go up just because some people have more money. Pretending money is akin to a physical thing like oil is ridiculous. It's not a physical thing... It represents energy and value and poor people, minimum wage workers having more money will not have the devastating effects on the economy you are pretending.

You're acting as if something you are stating is a fact, but we know that's not true. We're just arguing different ways to go about living. Some ways are based on something other than greed and selfishness and evil and exploitation and obviously those are the ways we should be pursuing.

It's simple supply and demand. When people have more money but the supply is the same, prices go up. I mean what do you think would happen if they emptied out all the billionaires bank accounts and divided their money equally among the people? Prices would jump immediately because we would all have extra cash, yet there would still be the same supply of goods out there. We would all have more money but there would just be a large amount of inflation that would negate any dreams of getting ahead.

I don't create the rules so I really don't know why you're getting mad at me.

People keep saying that a full time job should guarantee them the basic necessities, but I don't agree with that. If we had an arrangement where you said I could rent a room out in your house by doing work at your house and all I did was dust every day, the output of my work would not be worth the roof that you are providing over my head. If I built and installed cabinets in your kitchen, that would buy me a years worth tenancy in your home because my work output was worth what you are providing me in return.

Jobs are that same basic trade off. If the output of your job does not equal an apartment, car and bills, then the only way you can afford all of that is through subsidies.

 

[terrapin]

It's simple supply and demand. When people have more money but the supply is the same, prices go up. I mean what do you think would happen if they emptied out all the billionaires bank accounts and divided their money equally among the people? Prices would jump immediately because we would all have extra cash, yet there would still be the same supply of goods out there. We would all have more money but there would just be a large amount of inflation that would negate any dreams of getting ahead.

I don't create the rules so I really don't know why you're getting mad at me.

People keep saying that a full time job should guarantee them the basic necessities, but I don't agree with that. If we had an arrangement where you said I could rent a room out in your house by doing work at your house and all I did was dust every day, the output of my work would not be worth the roof that you are providing over my head. If I built and installed cabinets in your kitchen, that would buy me a years worth tenancy in your home because my work output was worth what you are providing me in return.

Jobs are that same basic trade off. If the output of your job does not equal an apartment, car and bills, then the only way you can afford all of that is through subsidies.

This is such a disingenuous argument and it's telling that you have to pretend we're talking about all the billionaires emptying out their bank accounts instead of some poor worker who's got bald tires just being able to afford tires.... Nearly every argument you guys put forth is disingenuous I've noticed.

Also, I think you're failing to see that many of these people get help and so the money is there that you pretend isn't there. They're just getting it from somewhere else other than the employer, which completely undermines your entire argument about supply and demand.

You think taxpayers should subsidize corporations and business owners so they can get wealthy off the backs of cheap labor. But that's parasitical on society and people who have no involvement pay that cost.... instead the employer should pay a fair wage so that I don't have to fund his wealth project. Why am I subsidizing his labor costs so he can buy a yacht or have more wealth?

You basically want the taxpayer... the average citizen, to fund other people's wealth projects for them so that they can exploit workers for cheap labor.

You probably also support lowering the tax rate though and in turn cutting finding for the least among us.

That's really dumb and self-contradictory.

I think you have no position at all and literally no leg to stand on here.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I'm not the one that creates the rules of capitalism. You can't mandate a living wage because as soon as you up the minimum wage, the prices of everything just goes up with them. The Government can't mandate every company that offers goods and services to put a cap on their prices to accommodate minimum wage workers.

You can't just cap the greed of business owners and have them make "reasonable" profits. I'm good with what you're saying about stock buy backs and I'm also on board with closing tax loopholes as well as the government actually cracking down on monopolies and a host of other things but you can't just force business owners to cap their own profits in some arbitrary manner.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Under capitalist competition, profits should be near zero. That’s not happening here because these are oligopolies, likely colluding, and it’s a known that this is a problem that has a negative impact on the economy under capitalist theory

 

[RoastBeast]

This is such a disingenuous argument and it's telling that you have to pretend we're talking about all the billionaires emptying out their bank accounts instead of some poor worker who's got bald tires just being able to afford tires.... Nearly every argument you guys put forth is disingenuous I've noticed.

Also, I think you're failing to see that many of these people get help and so the money is there that you pretend isn't there. They're just getting it from somewhere else other than the employer, which completely undermines your entire argument about supply and demand.

You think taxpayers should subsidize corporations and business owners so they can get wealthy off the backs of cheap labor. But that's parasitical on society and people who have no involvement pay that cost.... instead the employer should pay a fair wage so that I don't have to fund his wealth project. Why am I subsidizing his labor costs so he can buy a yacht or have more wealth?

You basically want the taxpayer... the average citizen, to fund other people's wealth projects for them so that they can exploit workers for cheap labor.

You probably also support lowering the tax rate though and in turn cutting finding for the least among us.

That's really dumb and self-contradictory.

I think you have no position at all and literally no leg to stand on here.

You seem to be so upset that you aren't even comprehending what I'm saying. I never attributed the billionaire bank thing to you as one of your ideas. It was just an example I made up to show what happens when demand is upped unnaturally while supply stays the same.

The subsidizing thing is also a reading comprehension fail on your part. I gave you a perfectly clear example where work output does not equal the return trade of a roof over someone's head. If that person wants a roof over their head, then they have to be subsidized to afford it because their work value isn't enough to pay for a roof over their head. That's not me rooting for business owners to short change employees so I can in turn pay them through my taxes. That's ridiculous. So ridiculous that you probably should have realized that you misinterpreted my post instead of thinking that I believe in something so asinine.

 

[Misfit23]

That's funny because I was just reading this:

McDonald’s plans to step up deals to combat slower fast food traffic

McDonald’s same-store sales growth fell short of Wall Street targets. The burger giant said customers are eating out less often in some markets because of inflation.

www.reviewjournal.com

Guess them chicken nuggets are comin home to roost.

Bring back the dollar menu!

 

[RoastBeast]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Under capitalist competition, profits should be near zero. That’s not happening here because these are oligopolies, likely colluding, and it’s a known that this is a problem that has a negative impact on the economy under capitalist theory

I agree that there are issues with oligopolies, monopolies and collusion that need to be addressed but profits are not going to be near zero. Why would anyone ever take on the responsibility to do something more expensive or more difficult if the end profit was going to be near zero?

 

[helltoupee]

It sounds like you haven't really done the math here. Nobody is a billionaire from having a shop with a few employees, Amazon and Walmart have over 1.6 million and 2.3 million employees, respectively. Bob McCEO going from 400,000/month to 200,000/month and spreading the difference among all the employees comes out to like 8-12 cents per employee for the entire month, or a little over a dollar for the year. The CEO could work for free and give his entire salary to the employees, and that would be like an extra $2 for the year for everyone. There is no amount you can reduce the CEO salary to pay the other employees a noticeable amount more because the CEO salary already isn't even a noticeable fraction of the labor costs.

Several of the jobs you mentioned aren't even minimum wage jobs. Truck drivers definitely don't make MW, and neither do bank tellers or amazon employees. MW wage jobs are just that, they are the minimum skill and responsibility a job can have, so saying "if they walked out" isn't even a hypothetical, MW employees no show, oversleep, get high and don't show up or walk out all the time. They're the easiest to replace.

The corporations things isn't really that relevant either. The work is the work and the pay is similar regardless of who it's for. A cook at a fast food place pays the same as doing the same thing in a school cafeteria, but one of them taco bell writes the checks, and the other the school district writes the checks.






Lolwut? I though it was pretty clear that the $18k GDP per capita was in response to your "plenty for everyone". That is the impossible MOST everyone would make IF everyone was paid the same, so since they aren't, it necessarily implies that some people have to make less than that because some people make more than that. It is the impossible most because of course nobody would open any businesses in the first place if there was no upside in doing it. Thankfully there is incentive to do it, so people do.

Obviously I was making an extremely simplistic example that would be applied to ALL officers in the company, not just the CEO. Further, Bob McCEO at Walmart, all by himself, made $27 million last year, which is $562,500 every single week of the year. I don't think people truly understand how much money that really is, having $500,000 deposited in to your bank account every week for an entire year. That's absolutely ridiculous when the min wage workers don't make enough to subsist, and Walmart relies on the American taxpayer to subsidize these people with food stamps, welfare, etc. Add in the ridiculous pay for all the other corporate officers, and at least it could represent some kind of meaningful increase to the lowest paid workers. By treating employees with a little value and respect would go a long way in employee productivity and employee retention, which are two very costly expenses for an employer which could be avoided and possibly make up the difference in giving them a livable wage.

Further, during times that reductions are necessary, I would fully expect that those corporate officers absorb the reductions, which is not going to have any impact on changing how they live their lives, rather than expecting the people who could least afford reductions to absorb the hit. It's ass backwards and is the reason things are so top heavy in the giant mega-corp world.

 

[terrapin]

You seem to be so upset that you aren't even comprehending what I'm saying. I never attributed the billionaire bank thing to you as one of your ideas. It was just an example I made up to show what happens when demand is upped unnaturally while supply stays the same.

The subsidizing thing is also a reading comprehension fail on your part. I gave you a perfectly clear example where work output does not equal the return trade of a roof over someone's head. If that person wants a roof over their head, then they have to be subsidized to afford it because their work value isn't enough to pay for a roof over their head. That's not me rooting for business owners to short change employees so I can in turn pay them through my taxes. That's ridiculous. So ridiculous that you probably should have realized that you misinterpreted my post instead of thinking that I believe in something so asinine.

First of all, I'm not even slightly upset, not in the least in fact. There's no need to pretend I am.

Second of all you haven't addressed really a single thing ive said. You say if we flood the market with money (by paying a 20 minimum wage in California lol) then all the prices will go up. But the money is already being put into the market through subsidies and the prices haven't gone up so your arguments is wrong.

What you want is for the taxpayer to subsidize low paid workers instead of the employer who's becoming wealthy off of their work to just pay them a fair wage.

You support funding other people's wealth projects through taxes on uninvolved parties. But in a massive self-contradiction, you probably also support lowering people's taxes.

And you don't have an argument for that because there is no propaganda that can answer that point. It's just a basic fact of the worldview you're holding.

 

[RoastBeast]

Obviously I was making an extremely simplistic example that would be applied to ALL officers in the company, not just the CEO. Further, Bob McCEO at Walmart, all by himself, made $27 million last year, which is $562,500 every single week of the year. I don't think people truly understand how much money that really is, having $500,000 deposited in to your bank account every week for an entire year. That's absolutely ridiculous when the min wage workers don't make enough to subsist, and Walmart relies on the American taxpayer to subsidize these people with food stamps, welfare, etc. Add in the ridiculous pay for all the other corporate officers, and at least it could represent some kind of meaningful increase to the lowest paid workers. By treating employees with a little value and respect would go a long way in employee productivity and employee retention, which are two very costly expenses for an employer.

Further, during times that reductions are necessary, I would fully expect that those corporate officers absorb the reductions, which is not going to have any impact on changing how they live their lives, rather than expecting the people who could least afford reductions to absorb the hit. It's ass backwards and is the reason things are so top heavy in the giant mega-corp world.

Walmart employs 2.1 million associates. 27 mil divided by 2.1 mil is about $12.86 cents a year per associate if McCEO donated all of his salary to the employees.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I agree that there are issues with oligopolies, monopolies and collusion that need to be addressed but profits are not going to be near zero. Why would anyone ever take on the responsibility to do something more expensive or more difficult if the end profit was going to be near zero?

Because profits are after salaries.

This isn’t about agreeing with me btw. This isn’t like my opinion or anything. It’s capitalist theory

 

[RoastBeast]

First of all, I'm not even slightly upset, not in the least in fact. There's no need to pretend I am.

Second of all you haven't addressed really a single thing ive said. You say if we flood the market with money (by paying a 20 minimum wage in California lol) then all the prices will go up. But the money is already being put into the market through subsidies and the prices haven't gone up so your arguments is wrong.

What you want is for the taxpayer to subsidize low paid workers instead of the employer who's becoming wealthy off of their work to just pay them a fair wage.

You support funding other people's wealth projects through taxes on uninvolved parties. But in a massive self-contradiction, you probably also support lowering people's taxes.

And you don't have an argument for that because there is no propaganda that can answer that point. It's just a basic fact of the worldview you're holding.

Are you serious? I'm starting to lose respect for you man. How are you still making this same dishonest point after I've refuted it a few times in a row now? I am not rooting for employers to short change employees so I can in turn subsidize them with my tax dollars. Stop with that nonsense. It's so ridiculously stupid that I clearly made myself perfectly clear in my last post and you STILL somehow went right back to it. If you can't read what I'm saying, then don't engage in conversation with me because you're entering Jack Savage levels of dishonesty right now.

 

[Sinister]

Bring back the dollar menu!

They still have it, just nothing is $1 anymore. The dollar store model

 

[RoastBeast]

Because profits are after salaries.

This isn’t about agreeing with me btw. This isn’t like my opinion or anything. It’s capitalist theory

I understand where you're coming from. It's a theory for a reason because there is no consensus facts on how everything would play out.

It's so complicated that not a single person in the world has a full understanding of it and every variable involved but we all tend to come up with scenarios in our heads on how we can improve the system but many times if you go down that road by applying cause and effect, you realize that the fix isn't as simple as it seemed from the beginning.