Im not voting for the stinky jamaican/pajeet

>>1355501
you can't vote, you're not american

The way I see it, if someone would be incapable of living off a minimum wage without government assistance, that wage is too low.

Government shouldn't be giving companies handouts cause they're too cheap to pay their employees a living wage. That's just fucking wealth redistribution aka communism.

>>1355504
I like the way you think faggot.
If I can’t live in a 4000sq ft condo in Manhattan and drive a Bugatti, it’s minimum wages fault.

>>1355506
https://www.fastcompany.com/91212542/when-california-raised-fast-food-wages-jobs-actually-increased-thats-not-what-the-industry-wants-you-to-think
It's commonsense

>>1355506
let me guess, you also think unions are commie shit?

>>1355495
Federal minimum wage is $7.25. Global poverty wage is $2/hour
>b-b-but that's for the whole world! The US is supposed to be better!
Harris imported the third world, now we became the third world. If you want a minimum wage that's 10x higher than global poverty level, then stop importing third-worlders.
>Harris have in recent weeks made economic pledges to woo voters.
how will importing the entire third world help the working class in America? Democrats still can't answer that question.

>>1355546
faggot

>>1355549
>get BTFO and proven objectively wrong
>heh, what if I call him a FAGGOT that will make me look totally based and badass hehehe!
you're a redditor aren't you?

>>1355546
>Harris imported the third world, now we became the third world.
You're just giving us your feelings. The U.S. economy is number one among first world OECD countries. There is no metric by which we even remotely resemble the third world.

>how will importing the entire third world help the working class in America? Democrats still can't answer that question.
Ask Republicans. A Republican senator named James Lankford wrote an immigration reform bill that Republicans supported and was endorsed by the border patrol union that just endorsed Trump for president. Democrats agreed to it in exchange for continued funding to Ukraine. It would've added $650 million to border wall and security funding, streamlined hiring for border patrol, added thousands of detention beds, completely revamped the asylum system to allow immediate deportations and rejection of any migrants with criminal records and would've given DHS the emergency authority to completely shut the border and send deport all asylum seekers. Democrats and Republicans were ready to pass this bill but then Donald Trump told the GOP not to pass it because it would "give the Democrats a win before the election". He was afraid that if immigration got fixed before the election it would make Joe Biden look good so he sabotaged the bill and told them not to do anything about immigration until after the election. So, to answer your question, Democrats agreed to massive immigration reform but Republicans kept the border open so that the problems keep happening and Trump can tell his supporters that Democrats do nothing.

>>1355552
faggot

>>1355528
why do you want to personally subsidize companies with your tax money? their workers wouldnt need government benefits to get by if the company paid them reasonably

>>1355554
>where do you think your article lands in the evidence hiearchy?
I don't think about that, because it's a term of art you're misusing to deflect from minimum wage being good policy.
By the way an e. coli outbreak just started because Trump deregulated the meatpacking industry.

>>1355560
if theyre working for minimum wage, even full-time, they make little enough that they;re eligible for government benefits that you are paying for with your tax money. you are personally subsidizing those companies and advocating for it

>>1355554
unions are worker power directly embodied. they prevent bosses from fucking you over
have you worked a day in your life?

>>1355565
damn Trump really should have repealed and replaced that with something better like he said he would. I wonder why he didnt. luckily he has concepts of a plan, but because he's not in office he doesnt feel responsible for having a real plan

in any case, the alternative is that they allow their workers to work the extra 2 or so hours per week to make them full time, and theyre still below the poverty line, get government handouts, and you pay twice the price in your tax dollars for their emergency care for something that could have been avoided by routine healthcare.

back on topic, we're talking about minimum wage. why do you want to make up the shortfall of minimum wages so these companies dont have to?

>>1355561
If you had a problem with lies, you wouldn't support Trump. Don't get high and mighty, faggot.
So what is it then, did he only poison your drinking water instead of the onions? Huh, I guess that's pretty fucked up that he did that.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/trumps-toxic-wake-10-ways-epa-has-made-life-more-hazardous
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/epa-restores-water-regulations-once-diluted-during-the-trump-era
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/31/trump-toxic-water-pollution-wastewater
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604

>>1355565
>ACA us incentivizing companies to not provide full time positions which would require the company pays for benefits and encouraging the workers to leech of the government for healthcare.
Source?

>>1355546
>$2/hour
DAY. Global poverty is $2 per DAY.
And since I know the lefties here can't do basic math, federal minimum wage is $58/day if you work 8 hours. That's not even close to poverty level according to the countries that Democrats want us to become.
>>1355555
>Democrats: Our wages are too low! Millions of Americans are living in poverty and can't afford to make ends meet. Americans can't afford a house or even rent because of how bad their wages are.
Also Democrats:
>Our economy is the best in the world! There's nothing that anybody could find remotely wrong with our great economy!
it's truly fascinating how schizo the mind of a Democrat is

>muh border bill!
you're an NPC who just heard that the media said it was a tough-on-immigration bill. It wasn't. It was just meant to trick people like you into thinking the Democrats were going to do something, and to take advantage of your goldfish memory and ignore how wide open the border was for 3.5 years, that Biden said he never wanted the wave of immigration to stop, and that Biden originally promised zero deportations. We needed ZERO migrants per day, not 5,000, and we needed to deport the ones already here and end the abuse of the asylum system.

Four years ago you proudly voted for open borders and now you're arguing that Democrats are tough on borders. You have no political opinions, you just follow whatever you're told and buy whatever gaslighting you're fed because you literally can't think for yourself. If the media tells you to vote for the Democrats because the Democrats want to allow unlimited immigration, you will. If the media tells you to vote for Democrats because Democrats are tough on immigration and will secure the border, you'll do that too because you're an NPC.

>>1355602
Meds

>>1355611
You can stop samefagging now

>>1355623
>>1355611
>>1355604
>>1355602
>Good point met by 1 word response
Guys. I'd like our /news/ section not to be complete garbage. Anon 1355602 makes a great point on where we set the goal post in comparison to worldwide average.

If you want to attack it, attack the cost of living vs our average hourly wage, or some avenue of reasonable debate. It degrades /news/ to not give important points, even ones that disagree with you, the proper coverage they need.

>>1355628
>This was me, continuing in response of main response

>>1355602
>Global Poverty at $2 per DAY, US min wage at $58 per day.
I went to Chat GPT (so take with a grain of salt these estimates), and asked it what the low and high end of cost of living per month was and had it calculate the per day response to better illustrate.

For the lowest end, according to AI stats, it would be $1,500 - $2,500 per month, which boils down to $50 - $83 per day at cost of living on the LOW end. $58 a day isn't enough to combat that.

Moreover, according to the stats on the highend, the cost per day can increase up to $166 - $300 a day. I will give you that our wage is probably better than most of the world. However, we got a cost of living problem that stifles this wage and puts us into perpetual debt.

I will also give you that our quality of living supercedes that of one living at 2$ a day or below, but I would argue that that doesn't make the US's financial strifes any less difficult. It is relative and each person trying to live their own life will struggle in their day to day.

I agree that raising the minimum wage will NOT HELP. A few dollars an hour can only do so much to combat our cost of living problem. We need to find ways to make cost of living not a problem, making energy cheaper, and making our resources more plentiful or better utilized is the bare minimum of what needs to be done.

>>1355631
> Continuing from here
I'd like a world where minimum wage, or even $5 an hour is enough to live the bare minimum of lifestyles and to live in a nation. In such a world, less becomes more as cost of living goes down to accommodate that. Throwing money onto problems rarely fixes them.

>>1355631
>>1355636
>Had an idea from this discussion.
So, I was thinking about this more and note that a lot of the cost of living changes rapidly, and most of that difference is from states themselves. Some have intense taxes, or policies that cause cost of living to rise.

So my alternate solution is, why not try and make a dynamic minimum wage. Calculated in account of the region's cost of living. I know that a large minimum wage can stifle business or local economy, but maybe making it regionally dynamic might encourage better policies being made for the people and might serve a great initiative to combat our cost of living / wage gap.

>>1355602
>Our economy is the best in the world! There's nothing that anybody could find remotely wrong with our great economy!
Its truly fascinating that this is the best strawman you could come up with.

>you're an NPC who just heard that the media said it was a tough-on-immigration bill. It wasn't.
Firstly, I read the bill. Its published on James Lankford's website. Secondly, if you don't like the bill then your issue is with Republicans. A Republican wrote it. Mitch McConnell pushed it. Republicans supported it. The border patrol union endorsed it. Trump told the GOP not to vote for it because it would've been a "win" for Democrats. If the bill was so bad, then why did Trump and the Republicans call it a "win"? You have no answer.

>Four years ago you proudly voted for open borders and now you're arguing that Democrats are tough on borders. You have no political opinions, you just follow whatever you're told and buy whatever gaslighting you're fed because you literally can't think for yourself.
You've managed to type a lot of words without responding to a single thing I said. Democrats supported a bill that would've added $650 million to border wall and security funding, streamlined hiring for border patrol, added thousands of detention beds, completely revamped the asylum system to allow immediate deportations and rejection of any migrants with criminal records and would've given DHS the emergency authority to completely shut the border and deport all asylum seekers. Republicans sabotaged the bill because Trump said passing it would've been a "win" for Democrats. Republicans kept the border open and sabotaged the country to help Trump's campaign. Cope.

If this is a practical proposal, can't Democrats just do it now? Why do they have to wait until after the election?

Isn't that why it is called "minimum" wage? It is impossible to have an income curve that starts at the middle and goes to the top. You cannot have only three quintiles. Math doesn't work that way.

>>1355868
>If this is a practical proposal, can't Democrats just do it now?
Do you know how congress works? Do you know the process for getting a bill from the house, to the senate, to the president's desk? Do you even know if they're in session right now? If they aren't in session what does it take to call all house reps and senators back to vote on legislation, especially 3 weeks before an election? If you don't know the answer to any of these questions then the answer as to "Why can't Democrats do it now" won't make any sense to you.

>>1355868
Yes.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2488/cosponsors
Where are the Republican cosponsors?

>>1355868
she wont do it because democrats dont want to do it and i can easily prove that with the simple fact that democrat have not done that while having 4 years to do it

democrats lie to your face in hopes you vote for them and after the election they spit in your face and laugh about it

>>1355889
was this a completely new idea that was only conceived just now? seems like the democrats could have done this at any point in the past few years if this were practical

>>1355870
>It is impossible to have an income curve that starts at the middle and goes to the top
"Lower class" and "in poverty" do not and have never meant the same thing.

Fucking idiot.

>>1355555
> There is no metric by which we even remotely resemble the third world
Harris said we have 10s of millions of people living in poverty. That resembles the third world.
>>1355504
nobody is incapable of living off minimum wage without government assistance. Rent would be very low if you shared an apartment with 6 adults.
>but I don't want to do that!
that's what they do in the countries you chose to import people from. Why did you vote to be culturally enriched if you didn't want to adopt that culture's standard of living?
>>1355913
then why are Democrats using them interchangeably? See >>1355546

>>1355565
Are you pro M4A? Or are you a dumb maga zoomer who doesnt remember the Bush years?

I made this point in a different thread, but I think a dynamic minimum wage based on regional cost of living is properly the best way to avoid bad actors and to encourage policies that help lower the out of control cost of living in the US.

I don't have the energy to guide you to the thread where I went into a loooot of detail, but it should be on /news/ within the first page or so still.

>>1355928
Minimum wage increases do not increase the cost of goods. When minimum wage is not raised the price of goods still goes up. Business owners will always raise the price of goods and never lower the price. Line must go up and they will tell you the cost of employees is the reason because they want wage slaves.

>>1355937
>Misunderstanding my position and point
When I mean dynamic minimum wage for regional cost of living, I mean that the minimum wage is not the same across the entire united states. In places where cost of living goes up to 160$ a day or more, the minimum wage would be increased in those areas to make sure that no matter where you live you have enough money to not go into major debt and to have a life.

When I say this would encourage policies that would lower cost of living, I meant it in the form that this type of policy is very citizen / worker focused, and that businesses and governmental agencies will be encouraged to set appropriate costs to goods, and help encourage policy makers to better align policies for the good of the people.

In some ways, I think a regionally dynamic minimum wage helps confront and punish greediness, that if cost of living goes up the demand on wages is placed on the businesses, and thus lobbyists are encouraged to make a more prosperous society so as to not have the wages of their employees eat into their profits.

>>1355937
> Business owners will always raise the price of goods and never lower the price.
Which again I wasn't considering becauuuuse, if businesses keep prices raised when they don't need to be, cost of living goes up and thus goes up the minimum wage. This plan makes it so that when corporations get extra greedy, it is gonna shoot themselves in the foot and the common man won't be penalized as the minimum wage adjusts for the cost of living for their local life.

>>1355937
>>1355941
> Trying to make this succinct
This point and plan is not something I've heard other people propose often, so I ask that ya'll keep an open mind and consider it. xD Cause it's not a left or right talking point.

>>1355942
Imagine having an original idea on 4chan. Insane behavior.

>>1355941
>>1355942
I understand your point. My point was the minimum wage has not been raised in 15 years. Cost of living has over doubled in that time, but no increase. Because corporations pay legislators to be against it. You are talking about raising it depending on the cost of living of the area. Before they happen the minimum wage would need to be over doubled just to catch up, then raised again based on the area. You are taking about a band aid on a gaping wound. Got to sew it closed first. Then we can adjust it for the area.

>>1355528
That's not what he said, retard. You don't need that shit to live.

>>1356027
and you don't need the shit leftists claim they need to live. See >>1355546
People are living on $2/day, yet Democrats claim they can't live without one adult renting a large 2-bedroom apartment with a smart phone, Netflix, and Uber Eats.
You want to import the third world and then complain when you don't have a first world standard of living anymore.

>>1355975
>>1355941
>>1355928
>minimum wage based on regional cost of living
that's what state and local laws are for. NYC has a minimum wage of $16/hour. California has a minimum wage of $16/hour and San Francisco is about $18/hour.
There's no need for a federal minimum wage increase. Different places have different costs of living. In some places, $7.25 will go further than $16 will in NYC. So why should NYC democrats demand that other places raise their minimum wage when those places already pay better than NYC after adjusting for cost of living?
The problem is that most leftists don't understand anything about economics, and don't even know what state/local governments are so they just want the federal government (especially the president) to do everything.

>>1356027
You don’t need housing?

I know you’re a forever renter and will never understand what it means to put some effort in to your existence that doesn’t include mooching off other people.

>>1355504
I understand what you're saying, but the government doesn't set market prices, the market does. If a job can't pay enough to live on, then the job itself probably just shouldn't exist. Trying to have the government arbitrarily decide how much it should pay does nothing. We have already seen that California raising the minimum wage didn't put any upward pressure on jobs already paying $25 and above.

>>1355495
She's right.

>>1355495
Who makes the federal minimum wage? Grocery stores start you at $18 an hour in my town.

Let me guess. The haitians you imported to work at listeria ridden food factories.

>>1356052
>You don’t need housing?
No you need housing.

>>1356039
>Democrats claim they can't live without one adult renting a large 2-bedroom apartment with a smart phone, Netflix, and Uber Eats.
Source?

>>1356088
>I understand what you're saying, but the government doesn't set market prices, the market does
The price of dairy is entirely government regulated and there's a national minimum wage, not to mention laws against price gouging. Government sets all sorts of prices across the economy either through regulations or by acting as a direct participant in the market. Also the "market price" is fucking irrelevant.

>If a job can't pay enough to live on, then the job itself probably just shouldn't exist
You're right. And if a job can't pay enough to live on, it won't exist if we set a livable minimum wage. Problem solved. Our miscommunication here seems to be that you think wages are as high as they can be, and I think they're as low as they can be (and in many cases lower when you factor in illegal wage theft).

>Trying to have the government arbitrarily decide how much it should pay does nothing
It wouldn't be arbitrary. The government tracks the cost of living. It's incredibly well-researched. Almost like whether people can afford to eat or get healthcare or not is of government interest.

>>1355918
>then why are Democrats using them interchangeably? See >>1355546
That's very clearly not a Democrat.

>>1356039
> regional cost of living debate
Well, I think the premise of what I'm speaking of is that this would be a federal minimum wage, so implemented on a federal level, but it adjusts for regional cost of living. This would allow places like New York to be held accountable by the federal minimum wage when their cost of living is too high, and it allows a kind of check of power to keep this in order.

My initial proposal was to have a minimum wage managed on a national level, but adjusting to regional cost of living so that the problem of a biased state like NY or California which struggle with higher cost of living due to less shifts in policies in healthy directions or maybe business philosophies within state have to be held to the same standard.

If the state and region causes its worker's cost of living to sky rocket, the state and region should be empowered to fix it and the people working in such areas should not have their right to live infringed by bad policy.

With that being mentioned, I do know that having it be managed on a federal level instead of a local level means for the most part that it might be poorly managed. If our federal government was a bit more reliable, I think this methodology would be perfect and we could even setup tests to find the exact regional cost of living and have the minimum adjust with that.

>>1356126
but it is somebody pointing out that Democrats are using "poverty" and "lower class" interchangeably. Harris thinks anybody earning less than $15/hr is poverty yet the actual measure for poverty is $2 per DAY (not hour)