disguy_ovahea @ disguy_ovahea @lemmy.world

Posts

54

Comments

4,956

Joined

1 yr. ago

As I said above, an ideal federal minimum wage is enough to live on in the state with the lowest cost of living. More than that will put more people in lower income states below the poverty line when the price of goods and services increase as a result of the higher payroll costs.

You really don’t follow. I’m not defending inequality. I’m stating an economic fact that increasing the federal minimum wage too much will not only fail to provide a livable wage nationwide, but it will also put more people below the poverty line due to the increased cost of domestic goods and services provided at the new higher wages. More people would be on SNAP as well as working full time due to the increased cost of our food supply chain.

It’s honestly not as simple as turning it up to fix everything. Our capitalism needs to be checked with more democratic socialism if we want to move more people into stable income ranges. My personal investment would be to address our medical system first with socialized medicine, but that’s hardly enough on its own. Inequality will only worsen with AI replacement.

Put me back to sleep and wake me for the revolution.

I guess. I’m more of a space socialist, myself. Silly me always assumed that equality and collaboration would be a precursor to colonization of other worlds. Musk is trying so hard to prove me wrong. Lol

The first crew would face the most difficult challenges. Imagine the relief after expecting to establish the fundamentals of civilization, and instead are just assigned your living quarters.

Just like Raphael Edward Cruz.

Are you aware there is more wealth inequality in wealthier states than poorer states? There’s no state in the US like Saudi Arabia. Wealthier states have a higher cost of living, making it more difficult to earn a livable wage, not less. That’s precisely why states set their own minimum wage, which is unfortunately below representative of the difference in cost of living.

That’s why states set their own minimum wage above the federal minimum wage.

As I said above, I am the exploited. Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it?

No, i just had to pass an economics class that had a required paper on protecting the vulnerable members of society through federal social systems and the minimum wage. It became abundantly clear that our system of economy is the reason we have the need for social programs, not the federal minimum wage.

As I said above, I’d prefer that we all had a livable wage. That’s not feasible with our current economic system. We’d need to employ more democratic socialism and use adjustable subsidies to ensure all people were paid enough through a regularly fluctuating economy.

BTW, I am the exploited, so there’s really no benefit for me in this argument. It’s simply an educated perspective.

It’s like Ruth’s Chris, except Fat Sal sold it to another guy named Fat Sal.

Exactly. Artificial intelligence is the parent category.

Your outrage is justified, but your reasoning is flawed. Take an economics course. You’d be very surprised how limited the federal minimum wage is in accomplishing a livable wage across our nation. It’s a safety net for the poverty line. Any more than that will destroy the local economies of poor states. That’s why states set their own minimum wage.

Because I understand economics, and it’s not the right tool for the job.

If you raise the federal minimum wage too high for the poorest states, private businesses will not be able to employ workers. Raising wages directly increases the cost of goods, driving consumers to corporate chains, shuttering local businesses whose employees end up working for minimum wage for the corporations. That’s how you end up with an entire state on welfare and SNAP benefits while working, just to make ends meet.

What you want is a livable wage everywhere, which I am all for. That cannot happen by increasing the federal minimum wage. Smart subsidization and mixed-economics (Democratic Socialism) has proven to be the most effective way to achieve that goal. Look into Nordic mixed-economies for reference.

It’s not barely enough. It’s the median income.

$17/hr is $35,360/yr. The median income in Arkansas, the state with the lowest cost of living, is currently $36,761.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas

It’s not a compromise. Federal minimum wage should be enough to live on in the poorest state. More than that would create private business deserts in poor areas, forcing the locals to exclusively patronize corporations. More of the population would need social program assistance to help pay for the increased cost of our domestic food supply.

Correct. Before people say “it should be $25/hr,” federal minimum wage is only matched by the poorest of states. State minimum wage increases would be warranted and implemented in states with a higher cost of living following the federal wage hike.

You’re right. A passport satisfies both requirements.

Exactly. They would need to get a passport with the name on their REAL ID in order to vote.

If this bill passes in the Senate, it would require a license or REAL ID as well as proof of citizenship in order to vote. If your name is different on your license/REAL ID than it is on your birth certificate, you will need to get a passport in order to be eligible to vote. This would disenfranchise an estimated 70 million married and trans people.

They need 60 votes to pass this in the Senate, which would require all Republicans as well as seven Democrats. Call and message your Senators and tell them to vote NAY on the SAVE Act!