“remove our 2A rights” is a weird way to phrase “regulating gun availability to make it harder for people who intend to use them to kill people to get them.” you know the text of the second amendment includes the phrase “well-regulated,” almost as if they did not intend for gun availability to be the lawless wasteland that it currently effectively is.
Why’s it wrong?
I’ve been retreading the same ground because your argumentation strategy has just been to double down on your original points while ignoring my rebuttals. Which makes it fucking rich of you to accuse me of “not being interested in examining this discussion in any meaningful way.” Imagine what I could achieve with that level of absolute brass balls.
What’s the point of discussing if wages have grown without factoring in inflation? If wages increase, but inflation increases by the same amount, then leaving out the latter when arguing the former seems a little fucking dishonest, no? And of course it didn’t occur to you to read past the first sentence to see where she makes that exact same point… or you deliberately ignored it to keep doubling down on the points I’ve already debunked.
And you’ve also admitted that there are still workers making the federal minimum wage, so it doesn’t seem like this wage growth you think is such a trump card has been benefiting them at all. As I pointed out earlier, a third of the workforce is making less than $15, meaning that all of them would get a pay bump from raising the minimum, not just the ones who are already on the minimum wage. I have made this point multiple times and you still refuse to acknowledge it.
Honestly, you’re arguing dishonestly enough that I straight up don’t believe you when you say you’d love to see wages rise more.
Top result on Google. https://www.ppic.org/blog/wage-growth-is-struggling-to-keep-up-with-inflation/ Got another “nuh uh” for me, or are you going to make an actual effort this time?
And they still aren’t, so why should she discuss that?
I appreciate that you want more frequent adjustments to the minimum wage. I am in full agreement. I think it should be assessed on a national level more so than local, because making it piecemeal like that leaves lots of open opportunities for bad actors to exploit it (think gerrymandered congressional maps), but I do appreciate that as far as that goes, we are largely in agreement.
That said, Teter’s essay addresses most of the other claims in your comment, with both argumentation and sources. Maybe you should read more of that and try addressing some of her other rebuttals to your points, rather than just ignoring them and repeating yourself endlessly? Then you might at least look a little bit less disingenuous.
It’s at least a little bit interesting IMO that this is something of a pattern I’ve noticed. I had plenty of stupid arguments on Reddit, but at least those ones would change over time as new information was introduced and responded to. Here, it seems way more common for people to just ignore your rebuttals to their points and just repeat them without adding anything new. Are people here just more stubborn, or what?
I mean, if he went to high school in a red state, maybe his high school econ homework would explain why he’s like this.
I mean, at least you acknowledged that I said it this time. Even if I’m now slightly less convinced that you deliberately aren’t getting it, because you still didn’t seem to understand what I was actually arguing.
They say it takes exponentially more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spread it, and when I’m making a real effort to make a point and your rebuttal is basically “nuh uh,” that seems to hold true. Fortunately, I don’t have to type out the argument myself when I can just post Charlynn Teter’s excellent essay, sources included, about it instead. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2021/01/30/no-more-lies-the-truth-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/ I look forward to how you “nuh uh” this.
I think you’re pretending not to understand the relevance of the minimum wage because two comments ago I said this:
Furthermore, raising the minimum wage leads to people in that gap also getting raises. People can and do benefit tremendously from the minimum wage being raised, even if they have never personally worked at minimum wage. As such, the minimum wage is relevant to far, far more workers than are actually getting it.
And you proceeded to act like I didn’t.
Alright, so what individual actions are you personally undertaking to affect the kinds of systemic change we need for our economy to work for all of us? Surely if your ideology is founded on reality, you’re making real change, right?
For me, personally, I am advocating for policy changes that would benefit us. My efficacy is limited, because my only real option is to bother my elected officials about it when I’m not busy working longer hours for lower real wages just to survive, but given that I believe policy changes are the only way to actually solve any of our systemic problems, I am at least ideologically consistent.
I’m sorry, how in the fuck is the minimum wage not related to the fact that rising prices and inflation are causing people to struggle financially? That’s like saying the tides have nothing to do with surfing.
And sure, wages are up, the problem is that if you bother to account for inflation and COL, the purchasing power they provide is down. That’s what people mean when they say “real wages.” I’m sure you know that on some level, even if for purposes of this discussion, you’re pretending not to.
I wish I lived in your fantasy world where individuals who are being adversely affected by the cost of eggs can still somehow magically not only afford the startup costs of a farm, and manage to not only sell eggs at prices beating out major agribusiness, but can also do so at a sufficient scale to affect system-level change. What absolute starry-eyed naivete.
Your number leaves out all of the people whose pay rates are above minimum wage, but are still poverty wages. There is quite a large gap between minimum and poverty, and not in the direction that benefits the working class.
Furthermore, raising the minimum wage leads to people in that gap also getting raises. People can and do benefit tremendously from the minimum wage being raised, even if they have never personally worked at minimum wage. As such, the minimum wage is relevant to far, far more workers than are actually getting it.
I agree, we should throw him in prison for the rest of his life.
I don’t think I can pick up the garbage with these handcuffs on.
I can leave the house if I wanna see that
too bloody right
Yeah, like I said, I didn’t see any concrete evidence of what I would expect from the name of their organization, and the actual policies they support are mostly things that I also support (increasing density, investing in infrastructure, generally pro-transit, stuff about healthcare, education, allowing remote work, etc). I guess I just find it weird that they’re supporting all of that specifically because it gets more people to have kids, and not because they just make people’s lives better, which is my reasoning. Maybe it’s my personal bias as somebody who doesn’t want kids.
To borrow a phrase from Steve Hofstetter, I’ve never flown a helicopter, but if I saw one in a tree, I could still be like “dude fucked up.”