Sanders, Dems introduce $15 minimum wage bill

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, Whispering said:

Not until you get you free college education and work for four years in New York! The cost of college education in Vermont is very expensive. (top five for state schools) You have your whole life, though! Move after you pay off your debt to NY!  

Oh yeah of course, I'm definitely gonna take advantage of New York's free college. I'm not sure where I wanna go after that, if I wanna move. The country is so large with so many beautiful places to live.

[Economy 52,861]

1 minute ago, Luc said:

Job growth will only be slowed down, not killed. There will be less job positions but remember that these people simply don't look for jobs all day, else they would've been part of the 4% that is unemployed. These people lack motivation to go to the market, because (for example) it's not worth it the hassle, or because they can't get a job (bad excuse with 4% unemployment) or because their husband makes the money anyways.

 

When they get a job, they create their own demand. They go to the job market, earn more and spend more, creating jobs in turn. You just need to engage those people. Countries like the UK, Norway and Sweden seem to be doing a better job at this.

Also higher pay results in more productivity both due to higher motivation from workers as well as companies making sure their workers are well organized and efficient since labor isnt as cheap

 

More productivity per worker ultimately allows for a more vibrant economy. The US doesnt need lower unemployment now cuz its already close to full capacity. The US needs more output per worker for more wealth

 

that being said for most parts of the US $15/h is too much. I think $11 or $12 is more reasonable then States can set it a little higher if their economic circumstances permit

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

If they don't wanna raise wages then prices on everything need to drop then. 

It is beyond ridiculous that people are employed full time, making min. wage and still are SURVIVING, not living. 

Advanced nations need to have livable wages imo. 

I know it's idealistic, but wouldn't that be nice? 

[Luc 4,776]

14 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Oh yeah of course, I'm definitely gonna take advantage of New York's free college. I'm not sure where I wanna go after that, if I wanna move. The country is so large with so many beautiful places to live.

go perform your civic duty and turn a swing state of your choice blue!

 

(isn't there a rule that you have to stay in New York after graduating if you want the free college?)

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, Luc said:

go perform your civic duty and turn a swing state of your choice blue!

Does Nevada still count as a swing state or is it blue as of this election?

[CommonWhiteGirl 1,039]

36 minutes ago, Luc said:

Of course, some CEOs (like Bill Gates) aren't greedy at all. They see that they, in hindsight, don't need billions of dollars. However, most CEOs - especially those on top of banks - are easily replaceable and don't contribute to society and thus do not deserve a wage higher than, say, 500k. Hell, some of them earn over 10 million. You're not going to tell me that these people literally worked 10000 times harder, because that's impossible! These people were born with privilege - they had their daddy's contacts helping out, they had daddy's life lessons helping out and they were born with higher intelligence. Did they work 10000 hours a day instead of 1 hour a day? That's impossible. I'm not going to deny that they worked hard to get where they are, but they sure as hell aren't skilled enough to be making such a shitload of money and they sure as hell didn't work hard enough to be given such a wage.

 

 

Okay I do actually agree with this, there are CEO's (such as bankers) who have old money backing them up and they got to the position that they are today because of their connections... but a lot of CEO's are today are new money and they HAVE worked for every penny of their millions. For every one person who doesn't work for their millions, there are another ten who have busted their humps. I'm not going to deny that there are people who are greedy and selfish and need to contribute to society, but the percentage of people who are actually like that is very small. 

39 minutes ago, Luc said:

Now let's talk about investors and shareholders. If you have 5 million dollars invested with a 3% dividend, you can basically sit all day enjoying your life while earning 150k a year. Did these people work hard? Contribute to society? Did they deserve such a high reward? Because that's where a lot of the money goes to, rather than those who work for the company at the bottom.

 

 

Honey, anyone can invest in stocks with any amount of money and still make (or lose) millions of dollars. Blaming people for making money on stocks and shareholds and calling them selfish is like blaming people who make money on winning the lottery and in casinos. In the end, they're taking a risk with their money and hoping that it pays off. These people are just lucky. 

 

41 minutes ago, Luc said:

but back on topic, nobody deserves to live in poverty. A 15$ minimum wage might be a little too high, but $12 or $13 should definitely be considered in 4 years from now (unless there's another crisis, yuck).

 

 

I agree, nobody deserves to live in poverty, but if you use your money wisely and know where to seek help you shouldn't have to live in poverty. I come from a single parent household and I've lived below the poverty line my entire life, so I'm not some rich snobby kid trying to say that all poor people aren't working hard... because I'm one of those people. But, my mom bought a house within her budget and had her mortgage paid off in within 10 years, she buys practical cars that last 10+ years, I'm getting a full ride to college because I've applied for so many scholarships and I've kept my grades up, we aren't paying a ridiculous amount of money on designer clothes and the latest iPhones. We're smart about our money and honestly, it's not that hard to still live a good lifestyle, it's a matter of how smart you are with your money. Some people are just stupid with their money and end up in bad situations.  

[Luc 4,776]

Just now, Born To Slay said:

Does Nevada still count as a swing state or is it blue as of this election?

No idea why you'd want to live there but I think it's pretty solid blue now. North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona are next I think. Florida will stay a swing state forever but I'm not sure if anyone would want to live there. By the way, read the last part of my previous comment (I edited it)

[CommonWhiteGirl 1,039]

48 minutes ago, Biotic said:

Wow....if you honestly believe that....

Yeah, I actually do. Like 95% of them have worked for every penny that they've gotten. There are a few rotten tomatoes in the pack but there's no denying that most of them have contributed a lot to society. 

[weed 78,959]

I really hope it goes through 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

4 minutes ago, Luc said:

No idea why you'd want to live there but I think it's pretty solid blue now. North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona are next I think. Florida will stay a swing state forever but I'm not sure if anyone would want to live there. By the way, read the last part of my previous comment (I edited it)

You only have to stay for as many years as you use the free college system. So if u go to college for four years, u have to stay for four years.

Anyway, Las Vegas seems like a nice city but if that's a blue state then my next choice would be Florida. 

[Luc 4,776]

1 minute ago, Colemonster86 said:

Okay I do actually agree with this, there are CEO's (such as bankers) who have old money backing them up and they got to the position that they are today because of their connections... but a lot of CEO's are today are new money and they HAVE worked for every penny of their millions. For every one person who doesn't work for their millions, there are another ten who have busted their humps. I'm not going to deny that there are people who are greedy and selfish and need to contribute to society, but the percentage of people who are actually like that is very small. 

Honey, anyone can invest in stocks with any amount of money and still make (or lose) millions of dollars. Blaming people for making money on stocks and shareholds and calling them selfish is like blaming people who make money on winning the lottery and in casinos. In the end, they're taking a risk with their money and hoping that it pays off. These people are just lucky. 

 

I agree, nobody deserves to live in poverty, but if you use your money wisely and know where to seek help you shouldn't have to live in poverty. I come from a single parent household and I've lived below the poverty line my entire life, so I'm not some rich snobby kid trying to say that all poor people aren't working hard... because I'm one of those people. But, my mom bought a house within her budget and had her mortgage paid off in within 10 years, she buys practical cars that last 10+ years, I'm getting a full ride to college because I've applied for so many scholarships and I've kept my grades up, we aren't paying a ridiculous amount of money on designer clothes and the latest iPhones. We're smart about our money and honestly, it's not that hard to still live a good lifestyle, it's a matter of how smart you are with your money. Some people are just stupid with their money and end up in bad situations.  

Glad you agree. Tech CEOs did innovate something, but still I don't think they deserve several billions for that work. They don't need it nor deserve it. Those billions would've otherwise been corporate taxes that they evaded. I also disagree with lotteries myself, but I don't think those can be forbidden (can they?).

 

Nobody's taking a risk by buying stocks, unless you're really dumb and don't spread it. In the end, stocks will always profit. I was talking about dividends, and it's pretty much assured that in the long term, stocks only go up while giving higher dividends than interest rates on a normal bank account. In the end, these people do nothing and earn a lot.

 

And yeah, even with a minimum wage life isn't that bad in the US, just know that there's plenty of people with multiple kids or expenses they couldn't have expected (medical, education, fines) or who have to start completely from scratch (after jailtime, after addiction). It's sad to see that most poor people/welfare recipients on TV usually smoke a cigarette while complaining about their lack of money (doesn't make me feel much sympathy), but even those people should be able to have a comfortable life with the occasional trip to a different town for example. I have an aunt myself who has lived below or at poverty line for pretty much all of her life, and her kids (they're mixed race, black) don't seem to have many chances in life either. I just don't think anybody should live at home at all times, never being able to buy a birthday gift and always wearing second-hand clothes, always walking or cycling because no car and no money for public transport. She manages to live very cost-efficiently but still barely makes it. I can imagine that in the US, where wages and welfare are lower for the lower segments, it's even more difficult to get by.

[CommonWhiteGirl 1,039]

5 minutes ago, Luc said:

Nobody's taking a risk by buying stocks, unless you're really dumb and don't spread it. In the end, stocks will always profit. I was talking about dividends, and it's pretty much assured that in the long term, stocks only go up while giving higher dividends than interest rates on a normal bank account. In the end, these people do nothing and earn a lot.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said in your post... except for this part. I personally know people who've lost everything because a certain stock plummeted. When the housing market crashed back in 2008, many people were invested in stocks and the companies values plummeted and thousands (maybe millions) of people lost all of the money that they invested. Not all stocks go up, and if the do go up it's usually not by much unless you keep your money in there for decades; even then it's very unlikely that you'll make a whole lot of money. 

We just finished a stock simulator in my econ class and only about one-fourth of the groups ended up in the green, most people lost thousands. It's like playing a slot machine; sometimes you get lucky and make it big while other times you strike out and lose. 

[Luc 4,776]

6 minutes ago, Colemonster86 said:

I agree with a lot of what you said in your post... except for this part. I personally know people who've lost everything because a certain stock plummeted. When the housing market crashed back in 2008, many people were invested in stocks and the companies values plummeted and thousands (maybe millions) of people lost all of the money that they invested. Not all stocks go up, and if the do go up it's usually not by much unless you keep your money in there for decades; even then it's very unlikely that you'll make a whole lot of money. 

We just finished a stock simulator in my econ class and only about one-fourth of the groups ended up in the green, most people lost thousands. It's like playing a slot machine; sometimes you get lucky and make it big while other times you strike out and lose. 

You have to play the long game. Invest in many different sectors (don't start now, though! Wait for the next crisis) and many different companies. Just keep them in there for as long as possible and don't move too much. I remember saying together with @Economy about two years ago that oil was bound to go up to $100 again, but it didn't happen (yet). Stocks are about the long game and if you lose a lot in 2008, you'll regain it in the years afterwards.

 

In my family's case, my grandpa died at the peak of the 2008 crisis with all his stocks worth way less. Saved a lot in inheritance taxes :p 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Good point. In the state I live in, this would mean that a worker at McDonald's would make as much as a starting salary for a teacher. 

Doubling the minimum wage for every state isn't going to make sense. Bernie has been in Vermont for too long...sometimes I think that he thinks everyone is white and living in a wealthy, liberal state. Lol

Exactly.

I think this gives liberals a bad reputation because it makes them appear to not understand the very diverse needs of rural America. 

Rural America cannot sustain a minimum wage of $15. $15 is Alabama is a LOT different than $15 in NYC or Vermont.

This just proves Bernie is sooo out of touch with real middle class workers. I wish he hadn't done this. 

53 minutes ago, Luc said:

Job growth will only be slowed down, not killed. There will be less job positions but remember that these people simply don't look for jobs all day, else they would've been part of the 4% that is unemployed. These people lack motivation to go to the market, because (for example) it's not worth it the hassle, or because they can't get a job (bad excuse with 4% unemployment) or because their husband makes the money anyways.

 

When they get a job, they create their own demand. They go to the job market, earn more and spend more, creating jobs in turn. You just need to engage those people. Countries like the UK, Norway and Sweden seem to be doing a better job at this.

If we encourage these people by increasing wages, there are simply going to be less positions.

We should encourage more workforce participation by first increasing the number of jobs.

Increasing wages artificially like this without first addressing workforce participation will be a bad decision.

That's just my opinion and the opinion of most economists I've personally taken to, but you're free to disagree. 

[Economy 52,861]

7 minutes ago, Luc said:

You have to play the long game. Invest in many different sectors (don't start now, though! Wait for the next crisis) and many different companies. Just keep them in there for as long as possible and don't move too much. I remember saying together with @Economy about two years ago that oil was bound to go up to $100 again, but it didn't happen (yet). Stocks are about the long game and if you lose a lot in 2008, you'll regain it in the years afterwards.

 

In my family's case, my grandpa died at the peak of the 2008 crisis with all his stocks worth way less. Saved a lot in inheritance taxes :p 

Oh the $100 oil probably wont happen till after 2020 cuz old megaprojects in Oil Sands, Deep Sea Drilling and large conventional fields will still be coming online as late as 2019 adding to production

 

But the investment freeze since 2014 means only short cycle stuff like shale can add to production quickly if a shortage occurs in 2019/2020

 

I have $10,000 roughly in oil stocks not cuz i expect a boom soon but it is about as low as it will go so theres a lot of upside potential long term with little short term gain

 

Also Canadas Oil Sands are prepping some big changes that in a few years will give us largest reserves on Earth and much cheaper production costs than now  

 

PS: Im only taxed 10.25% on stock gains. I enjoy it but i admit it isnt a fair tax system for wealthy ppl making a lot. They should raise it a little