Some dems pushing for 25 an hour minimum wage, AOC wants 30- economists by large oppose that

He has a moral right to pay nobody anything, employ nobody, create nothing, retire, and laugh at you all day long.

Elon will never be your bitch.

So when I read this, I read it as you have no real arguments when your views are examined critically. Just so you know, me not responding to this irrational reply of yours was my implicitly tacit response stating as much

Your arguments seemed like you were trying to exploit Musk.

It's my opinion that Musk would rather set all his wealth on fire before he would let you do that to him.

And yes, people do have a moral right to retire and stop paying the government an income tax.

Oh so telling musk he he has to pay his workers ten dollars per hour instead of two, is exploiting him? Poor musk. Won't somebody think of the billionaires??

No, the idea that Musk has a moral obligation to offer someone a job in the first place at any wage, minimum or zero, is exploitation.

That's enslavement, and Musk would never allow you to do that to him.

As I said, he has a moral right to pay his employees zero dollars, offer zero jobs to anyone else if and when they leave, and retire.

If it's a moral right for you to penalize a productive person, it's also a moral right for that person to stop producing, and to stop hiring, and to buy an army of robots.

What does what you just said have anything to do with requiring musk not to pay his workers peanuts if he does have workers?

Can't you engage in trains of thought without spiraling into irrelevance?

Here, try again to engage my reasoning that you so masterfully evade...

.......

Wouldn't a more honest version of your arguments be that exploitation of the poor by the rich is ok as long as their relationship is consensual?

To you are all consensual relationships non exploitative? If not what are some examples of consensual relationships that are exploitative to you? Why dont you view as exploitative the effectively unlimited labor pool plus some peoples lack of options but to accept beans for pay?

......

So Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and almost a trillionaire, has a moral right to pay Marginalized people, with no significant job options, next to nothing for their services? If they have no real alternative options and the number of people in the labor pool is effectively unlimited at least globally... how could you not see that as exploitation

......

I just explained to you why Musk has a moral right to STOP paying salaries and fire all his workers whenever he feels like it, and retire.

You remind me of that guy on Office Space who was fired but showed up every day due to an "accounting glitch."

 and the number of people in the labor pool is effectively unlimited at least globally

Is skilled labor unlimited? If that were the case, everyone would have next to no wages, the value of work would be substantially lower since anyone can do it, and nearly nobody could compete for a job.

the simplistic narrative that low wages alone caused industrial poverty ignores

I didn't say it did it "alone", but it was definitely a major contributing factor.

If you're going to argue that minimum wage policies are primarily a productivity incentive, I can easily write another page-long rebuttal explaining...

Yes, I am well aware you can ask ChatGPT to write another page long rebuttal. I prefer to interact with real people.

I like how you forgot to omit the word "ignores"

Nice accidental self-tell.

Also:

The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest, the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole.

That remains one of the most backwards ideological inconsistencies I have ever read, and I have read a lot. It not only absolves the individual of his civic duty in the first part but also ascribes a duty that clearly is not evident by any metric with your second claim.

Governments are not magically composed of selfless entities operating outside human nature. They are collections of individuals pursuing incentives, power, influence, and institutional preservation just like everyone else. Leave it to a political hack to ascribe saint-like qualities to an institution with the most mindless fervor of faith seen in any religion.

Yes, I am well aware you can ask ChatGPT to write another page long rebuttal. I prefer to interact with real people.

That was a fast concession. Nice.

Governments are not magically composed of selfless entities operating outside human nature. They are collections of individuals pursuing incentives, power, influence, and institutional preservation just like everyone else. Leave it to a political hack to ascribe saint-like qualities to an institution with the most mindless fervor of faith seen in any religion.

Hey, if he thinks government is composed of selfless omnibenevolent individuals, let him. the government strongly encourages his type of thinking.

Which is why I called it a fervent faith. It's all a religion.

Its current most popular religion, where government decides what is true and what is right, who is good and who is bad. Government is judge, jury, prosecutor and executor of everything, all in one, the ultimate moral judge, the true God of all existing realm. But it only works thanks to devoted followers like him. When government tells him to jump, he jumps. When government tells him to think, he thinks in way government approves. And government is then happy and giggles in harmony with the universe.

And those people think there is no civic duty, such as the civic duty of the founding fathers that was required to create a constitution to protect the people from a tyrannical government (which was entirely necessary because the government naturally does NOT look after the people, nor does it have any duty to do so. It's a bureaucratic enforcement machine, with no scruples. That's all it is.)

The USA is fast becoming a low-trust society where nobody can rely on anyone else but themselves, because the current culture rewards obedience to the government and doesn't shame those who do not care about their local community. It's a culture of excuses for rampant toxic personal behavior, imagined government security, and imagined local oppression.

a more honest version of your arguments

No. I expect some who are poor have that impression, but that is merely self-limitation taken to an extreme, because some who are wealthy do devote time and resources for the benefit of the poor with no expectation of either exploitation of them, or future re-compensation from therm.

I am one of them. First, I give 20% of my income to local needs, plus contribute time to volunteer at an assisted living facility for which my daughter is a Director, and is also a Paramedic. I also do line-drawing illustrations to contribute to schools for special-needs children for coloring, read stories and discuss them with those same kids. A group of us assist elderly members of the community with their yard work, weeding, mowing, trimming, etc.

--> anyone can get rich, everyone cannot.

If I really believed that...

So you believe everyone can be rich, is that correct?

Ambition is the lack, and by denying that, as well as planning and execution, the poor will remain poor, and average will remain average

I already addressed the ambition issue with the Killer Mike example. Do you have any thoughts on it?

In the end, we are the ones that will pay for an increase in the minimum wage in the form of associated higher prices for products and services that use minimum wage labor. If it means minimum wage people can live an acceptable financial life, I'm glad to pay the higher prices, in return I get the satisfaction of knowing people less fortunate than I were helped out.

That's a much better use of my money than what I'm spending it on now in the form of the much larger price increases that are the cost of an illegal war and an economically incompetent President, for that incredibly expensive shit show I get nothing in return.

I like how you forgot to omit the word "ignores"

Nice accidental self-tell.

It wasn’t a failed omission genius, it was a failed inclusion of the three dots which should have been placed after ignored translating into “blah blah blah” because no one cares. As soon as you used the term “alone” you are misrepresenting my position in which case the critiques that followed don’t apply.

That remains one of the most backwards ideological inconsistencies I have ever read, and I have read a lot. It not only absolves the individual of his civic duty in the first part but also ascribes a duty that clearly is not evident by any metric with your second claim.

This is just stupid.

My statement doesn’t absolve anyone of anything. It explains in very simple very common sense terms what everyone’s first responsibility is and why we have a government in the first place.

People will always look out for their own best interests. That is human nature at its most basic and fundamental level. Capitalism not only works based off of this notion, it depends on it. The entire idea is that people will only work to solve other people’s problems if they themselves will benefit.

Hell, this is literally codified into law. you do realize that corporations are obligated by law to ensure their first priority is maximizing profits… right?

The second part, that the role of the government is to look out for the whole… how can any sane rational person argue against that? Please, be my guest… what is the role of government of not to look out for the best interests of the society it governs?

Before you give some stupid answer, we’re obviously talking about democracies or any form of government put in place by the people. We’re talking about the philosophical idea, not the reality of how governments operate.

Governments are not magically composed of selfless entities operating outside human nature.

No one made that claim genius. Again, human nature dictates that people will look out for their own best interests. That’s why our government was built with checks and balances - to ensure what’s in the best interest of the individuals working within the government are operating based on what’s best for the people, otherwise they would suffer personal consequences. This is really basic stuff.

Whether it’s working depends on the system. Having a justice department for example that reports directly to the president is a massive hole that the framers left in place only for someone like Donald Trump to come along and exploit.

Leave it to a political hack to ascribe saint-like qualities to an institution with the most mindless fervor of faith seen in any religion.

The tell of political hackery is to be explained something and to read something completely, totally different into it because it fits your preconceived notions, because you don’t read nor care what those you disagree with are actually saying.

Almost everyone can get rich; it's a simple calculus. Consume less than you produce. It's that easy.

If everyone suddenly lowered their consumption to the point it would make them rich, the US economy would crash. Not exactly how you build a rich wealthy economy.

Killer Mike

Yes, I have thoughts. You mentioned nothing of either the Bloods or Crypts' results of sales, and I don't know anything about the story, so I have no opinion whether it was a game changer for them, or not. At least the buried the hatchet for at least during the event, so, there's that. Sounds like they took on some ambition to do more for themselves than they ever did before, so, there's that, and it supports my point about ambition. Question remains, however, whether they'd have expressed that ambition before Killer Mike made his offer... which also underscores my point of lack of ambition.

It won't crash, it has a market correction. Your hyperbole never ceases to amaze me.

Sounds like they took on some ambition to do more for themselves than they ever did before, so, there's that, and it supports my point about ambition. Question remains, however, whether they'd have expressed that ambition before Killer Mike made his offer... which also underscores my point of lack of ambition.

It doesn’t underscore your point at all, at least not in any context that matters.

Your point as far as I understand it is basically just an excuse to not give a damn about people who are poor. In your mind, being poor = being lazy and therefore undeserving. Anyone can make it if they try, you say. But this conversation is about politics, which means we’re talking about government, which means we’re talking about government policy. And from the standpoint of policy, what you’re offering is totally useless. Anyone can play the lottery and get rich, that doesn’t mean playing the lottery is a retirement plan, and certainly not a plan to fix poverty.

The point of the Killer Mike example is simple; most people are not inherently bad/lazy/ambitionless. Most people are absolutely willing to make something of themselves… if they believe that opportunity really exists. Things worked out for you. That’s great. Congrats. But things cannot work out for everyone. Not as a sentiment, not as my opinion, as basic math.

If everyone in America was a millionaire, then everyone could buy a million dollar home. That doesn’t make huge beautiful homes magically appear, it just means that shitty fixer upper next door becomes a million dollar home.

So the question we’re actually addressing isn’t whether the lazy among us deserve to live better, it’s whether our system encourages them to get off their arse. I don’t know what happened to the gangbangers turned entrepreneurs, but my guess is they failed. Because most entrepreneurs fail. That’s the reality that keeps the poor, poor.

It won't crash, it has a market correction.

Yes, everyone pulling back their spending all at once has a market impact. Economists understand that impact very well.

It's okay, your benevolent government that cares about the welfare of the people will just bail out the banks when consumers voluntarily lower their demand for loans by consuming less. No market correction required when economic fascists are in charge of the private banking industry...

It's okay, your benevolent government that cares about the welfare of the people will…

Your capacity to disregard everything I’ve said and twist my position into whatever you like to tell yourself, in order to keep pretending my position is absurd, in order to not have to face the absurdity of your own position… is quite remarkable.

No market correction required when economic fascists are in charge of the private banking industry...

A market “correction” is the natural result of everyone suddenly pulling back on their spending. This is economics 101, you would know it if you understood the first thing about it.

A market “correction” is the natural result of everyone suddenly pulling back on their spending. This is economics 101, you would know it if you understood the first thing about it.

The banks must pay you well to support the fascist bailouts to those private sectors.

Such "kindness" from your sacred government overlords.

https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+101&oq=logic&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgCECMYJxiABBiKBTIHCAAQABiPAjIPCAEQLhgUGIcCGLEDGIAEMgwIAhAjGCcYgAQYigUyDAgDEAAYQxiABBiKBTIKCAQQABixAxiABDIHCAUQABiABDIKCAYQABixAxiABDINCAcQABiDARixAxiABDIMCAgQABhDGIAEGIoFMg8ICRAAGEMYsQMYgAQYigUyDwgKEAAYQxixAxiABBiKBTIKCAsQABixAxiABDIQCAwQABiDARixAxiABBiKBTIKCA0QLhixAxiABDIMCA4QABhDGIAEGIoF0gEIMjEyNmowajSoAg6wAgHxBcezGqeI447D&client=ms-android-charter-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

You miss my point;

The banks must pay you well to support the fascist bailouts to those private sectors.

No one said a thing about bail outs. You’re such a pathetic troll.

You miss my point;

I accept your concession.

Of course, you won't say a thing about it. You worship government intervention in all things.

Speaking ill of a benevolent government that cares about the welfare of the people borders on blasphemy.