File: 1570495567242.png (174.67 KB, 768x768, 1:1, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google
As outlined in this video by Now This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh4nhkuvuFc
In the state of California, Minimum wage is not a livable wage (if you're a single mom just trying to make ends meet).
This video, intended to argue for the raising of minimum wage, raises a common outcry "Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage!"
The question I pose is this: How should this hypothetical single mom earn her livable wage? If Minimum wage is meant to be for an unencumbered 15-25 year old to earn job experience, and a single mother is forced to try to live off of that wage, which part of the system is broken, and how would you fix it?
File: 1570499705364.png (183.31 KB, 810x578, 405:289, Screenshot_20190728-193103.png) ImgOps Google
If that chart is accurate, then something is amiss in California.
1600 for an apartment is almost twice what i pay on my mortgage for a 2 bedroom 1 bath 1500sqft house with 2 car garage and 4 outbuildings on the water.
Also, my budget for food is only about a 1/4 of that for mostly fresh produce, but i take it this person has a child since care for that child is in the budget.
Also, i mad 41k/yr at my last job and i paid more like 10k in taxes a year, not $2400. I have to also assume she is a single parent.
So there has to be more going on here, maybe the video explains it, but i apologize i cant watch it right now, i just saw that info and thought it looked off.
>part of the system is broken, and how would you fix it?
Lower industry taxes to help bring in better than minimum wage jobs, education and job training, child care and food subsidies, life management classes mandatory as part of the highschool curriculum.
A lot of that already exists though.
living expenses in california vary depending on location but $1600/mo is extremely low anywhere in California, most places are much higher. For a 1 bedroom apartment, this on the low end of average.
And you being in a higher tax bracket makes good sense that you'd pay more in taxes. Personally I'd want to remove taxes from the equation, but economists everywhere would have a conniption, and I don't know enough about economics to know if it's possible for a functioning economy to have zero taxes.
And yes, the video explains this is a single mom with one child, who works as a receptionist at a bank, which pays her $16.50/hr x 40hrs/wk.
File: 1570505007614.png (209.86 KB, 437x482, 437:482, 308308.PNG) ImgOps Google
Yeah, the tax brackets would be her 12% to my 25% but thats not 4.5x its only about 2x, but also, she gets to claim a dependent, so it probably makes sense.
I would say the biggest problem in this scenario is the rent, thats outrageous.
16.50 is a great wage in most places, i bought my house when i was making 15/hr and wouldnt have if it meant being house poor. I am rather poor atm as i haven't had a steady job in a little over a year, but i took that possibility into account before taking out the loan and made sure i could afford it through hard times.
Taxes are necessary, but it seems to me that if you lower corporate/industry taxes to incentivize companies to your area and bring higher paying jobs, you would recoup the money in income taxes, and it also raises and individuals quality of life.
Im not for taxes exactly ether, but they are necessary. They should be kept as low as possible though.
But yeah, whatever is happening in cali to make 1600 "normal" rent is the first thing i would address, because that kind of inflation is absolutely stunning.
>>3288>What causes the housing costs to be so high?
Supply and demand. The demand for housing in SF vastly exceeds the supply.
Also California has really weird laws about property tax.
File: 1570505615108.png (117.96 KB, 945x945, 1:1, shrugpony.png) ImgOps Google
>>3289>lower corporate/industry taxes to incentivize companies to your area and bring higher paying jobs
wouldn't that end up displacing small businesses?
as for the living costs in california, a quick google search reveals that the leading cause is simple supply and demand. There's not enough housing to go around in California.>>3290
ah, beat me to the punch
>>3251>If Minimum wage is meant to be for an unencumbered 15-25 year old to earn job experience, and a single mother is forced to try to live off of that wage, which part of the system is broken, and how would you fix it?
Provide state-funded free abortions and better family planning to prevent single women from giving birth to children whom they can't afford.
And maybe the federal government should spend less money meddling in the Middle East and instead use the savings to eliminate the payroll tax.>>3253> I think most people agree that it should be raised, unless you've got little empathy for the less fortunate.
Nah, raising the minimum wage will just lead to deleting the jobs whose economic value is less that than the new minimum wage and replacing them with automation.
File: 1570507604368.png (40.92 KB, 945x945, 1:1, shrugpony_trixie_by_moonga….png) ImgOps Google
I would think lowering their taxes wouldnt displace them. Most small businesses are LLC or "limited liability corporations".
And alright, then probably insensitive housing construction, which you would by lowering corporate taxes.
California is a big state, this seems to be an issue in select cities verses just a blanket problem of the state itself. I suppose it would be up to those cities to manage the housing crisis they are in, and if i lived in one of those cities paying 1600 to rent a 1br apartment, i suppose i would be planning my escape.
Gosh, if I could have a one bedroom for 1600 it would be a dream come true! I live in one of the most expensive parts of the state and that costs me about 2900 for a 2br apartment.
Lots of places in CA are just absurd, it's something most people probably couldn't imagine. But, this is normal for here.
California is a terrible place, so this isn't surprising.
Where I live, minimum is more than fine.
What I'd personally like to see is a way to leave terribly expensive places to live, in order to set up where low wages is perfectly fine.
I think it's a better solution than jacking up the wage constantly
This said, using a single mom as a metric seems to be a rather bad idea I'd say. Marriage is the big thing, honestly. Being married doubles your incomes after all. But being a working single mother and having to consequently pay for things like daycare is just crazy on minimum wage. It's for single person incomes, not supporting a family and the wages required for someone to take care of your kid.
If that's the case, my suggestion would be to get the hell out of California.
I mean, at that point, a plane ticket or a car drive is nothing, and if you have to work minimum wage it isn't like a job matters that much.
Get the hell out of that overpriced dump.
File: 1570536395145.png (244.11 KB, 699x778, 699:778, A40B8782-73B8-4118-9314-E9….png) ImgOps Google
Have you ever considered that maybe scraping shit from the walls of a McDonald’s toilet (or any other minimum wage job) may not be worth X amount of money?
Look at most minimum wage jobs. How much money do you really think these things are worth?
Also cars and after school care is unessential.
If you put in 8 hours of work a day, regardless of how difficult it is, you should be able to survive comfortably on it. Isn't that reasonable?
A minimum wage earner shouldn't live a luxurious life, but you can't tell me that giving up your 40 hours a week shouldn't be enough to merely survive.
Also, where do you live that minimum wage work is so enjoyable? Lots of minimum wage work doesn't require much skill but it still either physically or emotionally demanding.
This is putting aside the economics of paying them a living wage and what that would do to businesses and the economy. If the point is merely "does this work deserve X amount of money?" then the answer is a resounding yes.
Also cars and after school care are essential to some people. Are you just gonna have your five year old walk home from kindergarten while you are at work? I hope not! Older kids and teens are a different story but I'm guessing this single mother didn't adopt a teen.
File: 1570550649371.jpeg (411.74 KB, 1178x1783, 1178:1783, I know the pain of your c….jpeg) ImgOps Google
Maybe turn down the disdain for California a little bit. It has problems for sure, but redeeming aspects as well.
Just keep it a bit more civil, alright?
File: 1570555090429.jpeg (81.28 KB, 564x451, 564:451, AAC0CF51-22F2-4CF8-942E-9….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>3305>Isn't that reasonable?
I completely agree with you, but in practice I don’t think this will be as easy as you think. My point was that a job is only worth so much money, and if you’re employer isn’t making anything off you he isn’t going to hire you.
The solution should be to figure out why living expenses are so high in California in comparison to the rest of the country, and then steps should be taken to reduce these expenses. This could be anything from tighter boarders to control immigration, which would bring down housing prices and raise employment opportunities and a value for workers, to cutting back on regulation which could drastically cut the price of just about everything. Raising the minimum wage will only cause greater joblessness as some companies find it hard to break even with what they’re paying their workers, cause inflation, and drag people who are currently making anything slightly above the minimum wage into poverty as their pay check loses value by comparison. And to use a leftist point, greater regulation of wages could encourage employers to engage in shady business to get by, as drug dealers and prostitutes do now. I’m not arguing for no regulation, I believe in a minimum wage and fair labour laws, but pushing it too far can have even more disastrous affects.
That's fair, like I said, I won't argue with the economic reality of a living wage. But, when you talk about whether a job is worth X amount of money, then yeah it should be. Even if that is flipping burgers, delivering pizzas, or working a register.
If a company can't pay their workers a living wage, we should be considering why that is. For instance, I'd love to reduce business tax to zero percent, if we could regulate the money we're giving back to the company on a way so that it goes to creating a living wage. Maybe we should increase tax on business and offer huge breaks that can take the tax down to zero if they implement a cost adjusted living wage policy.
That's a very rough example, but I hope you see what I mean. People who put in the time should be treated respectfully and paid enough so that they can have, not a luxurious life, but at least a dignified life.
File: 1570562431545.jpeg (210.18 KB, 1280x1369, 1280:1369, 49591CCD-3F0C-4788-B119-6….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>3309>I'd love to reduce business tax to zero percent, if we could regulate the money we're giving back to the company on a way so that it goes to creating a living wage.
Fair enough, that is a really good idea, I’d be in favour of it. Although I still think that high prices, not low wages are the main issue here.
Seems a rather odd standard. People say all sorts of mean things about groups with actual people in it here. Yet I can't say a place, not a person or a group of people, is terrible?
What exactly is the standard at work here?
Why is saying a place you consider to be a horrid place to live is so unacceptable, but suggesting, say, people who want closed boarders are 'selfish', or fearful is. Or the suggestion that gun owners who would defend that right are "fanatical" and "unstable".
Are you really telling me there's a harsher standard for states
than there is actual groups of people?
Delivering pizzas pays great, actually. Tip jobs in general pay a ton. Problem is it isn't always reliable.
This aside; What constitutes a 'living wage' depends drastically on where you are. The money in the OP, here, would be a fortune. Only pretty quality jobs pay that, after all.
Especially since OP evidently uses a single mother in the example. Single mothers aren't who I usually think of when I think 'minimum wage living'.
Adjusting costs is a good idea, but I think it's difficult to address from a policy POV. How do we make housing cheaper in California for instance. It's nice to build additional housing, but there's a space constraint, and traffic is already miserable here, shit is pretty dense. Not NYC dense, but people don't want it to become even worse. So like, the will of many people in California is that we shouldn't be expanding housing despite desperately needing to.
Maybe we pay people to move out of the state? I'm okay with that! Get people out. It isn't easy for most people to just pack up all your stuff and go somewhere else, unless you have a job lined up there. >>3311
You can't just take random uncalled for provocative jabs at other places. It's kinda a dick move. Frankly, I reported you, and that was in leiu of bitching you out over having a crappy and uninformed opinion of a place you dislike solely because it aligns on the other side of the political spectrum as you. I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy if I started bitching out your hometown or homestate without having even visited the place or lived there enough to know what it really is like.
As for "harsher standards for states than actual people", I don't know which comments where not moderated properly, but understand enforcement isn't perfect, you should get used to it instead of complaining when you get into trouble for breaking the rules. Never in the history of man has an officer given someone a break because someone else happened to get away with a crime.
>>3313>You can't just take random uncalled for provocative jabs at other places
The thread cites fucking California. It shows how horribly expensive it is to live in California. That's not "uncalled for". And as to "provocative", calling gun owners who'd stand up for their rights mentally ill is sure as hell provocative, yet absolutely nothing was done when I reported that.> over having a crappy and uninformed opinion of a place you dislike solely because it aligns on the other side of the political spectrum as you
Absolute bull fucking shit. That's not why I hate it. It's a flat out lie. Though you want to talk about "provocative statements", how much you want to bet Rarity will do jack shit about this one?
You presume my position and claim it's from a negative place without evidence or cause. Completely uncalled for, as well.>I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy if I started bitching out your hometown or homestate without even having even visited the place or lived there enough to know what it really is like.
If it was in the context of a thread where the cost of living in my state was through the roof? Go for it.
The whole reason I said what I said was because the cost of living is absolute luxury over here. And, hell, it isn't even like I said anything that extreme, anyway. I never called California a fucking shithole, I just said it's a terrible place and a dump. That's hardly an extreme position. If you want to call my state a terrible place and a dump, I wouldn't bat a single fucking eye.
>>3313>Never in the history of man has an officer given someone a break because someone else happened to get away with a crime.
Is it not acceptable to point to someone who was not only not arrested, but outright said to have been in the clear?
Is it not an unjust system when some people have to abide by some rules, but not others?
A system where the police say it is okay for one man to do something, but not okay for me, is not a system I would feel any inclination to concern myself with. It would not be worthy of respect. An unjust system is not a system in which anyone has moral obligation to follow, and I would make the case, it's a system in which people have a moral obligation to actively work towards change or, if that is impossible, upheaval.
Depends on what you mean by 'politics'. What I'd point to is the absurdly high costs of living that makes 16.50 evidently not enough to live.
Probably part of why they've got a homelessness problem, honestly. It's why I'm personally in favor of government support for moving from expensive states like that, to places where there are more opportunities.
"Terrible" isn't a particularly strong word to me. But, yeah. I'd say an absurdly high cost of living that makes decent wages unsurvivable makes a place pretty bad.
I wouldn't really describe it as "difficult", myself, either. It seems that the 'difficulty' is only for the poor, at that point. This may be my standards, though. I tend to say difficulty has to be applied evenly in order to be 'hard'.
For example, I wouldn't call Mount and Blade a difficult game, personally.
Sure, it can be, especially at the start. But, it doesn't take long to start snowballing, and, when you do, it's pretty easy. It's just difficult at the beginning when you have some five peasants to try to protect yourself with from elite deserters.
Frankly, most people would think "terrible" is very very harsh criticism. Like, what would you call a place like North Korea then if terrible is a very light thing to you?
So, one flaw with the place is enough to make it "terrible"? I mean, why does a high cost of living make it so bad to you anyway? Have you lived in California or a place where the cost of living was that high? People find group housing here, and it isn't really that bad. Have you asked an actual Californian whether it sucks? Or do you just assume it sucks because it sounds
terrible to you?
Like, seriously, maybe you feel it is unfair of me to make that assumption of you. Okay. But, give me something with actual meat in it if you want to say a place is "terrible". I am giving you that opportunity right now and I don't feel like this is close to enough to justify your claim. You aren't even balancing out the really good things about California with your one bad thing. At this pace, CA is looking pretty good to me.
This statement: >>over having a crappy and uninformed opinion of a place you dislike solely because it aligns on the other side of the political spectrum as you<<
is a bad-faith assumption, and is not acceptable by board standards. Please ask the other poster for their beliefs and a direct statement instead of making such assumptions in the future.
It seems you're doing that now, but doing it first would've been a more productive way to create polite discussion, instead of an assumption.
I'd have to wonder what people you're talking to. Especially given a context like the one present in this thread.
Certainly, most people I talk to don't think "terrible" is 'very very harsh criticism'. I mostly see it used as a general low rating for somewhere. >Like, what would you call a place like North Korea then if terrible is a very light thing to you?
A totalitarian shithole.>So, one flaw with the place is enough to make it "terrible"?
In the context of a thread talking about living wages? Yes.
Though I think there are plenty other flaws with California. But, it wasn't really why I said what I said, after all. That was said mainly in the context of the thread; California is an extremely expensive place to live.
New York is terrible, in that way, as well, if it helps.> I mean, why does a high cost of living make it so bad to you anyway?
Because as the OP points out it makes it impossible to live at a quite high end wage?
I mean, that money'd let you live pretty luxuriously elsewhere.
To be fair, OP's example uses a single mother. Not exactly a common individual to be working minimum wage. Or maybe it is in California. I'm not familiar with your minimum-wage jobs enough to say.> Have you lived in California or a place where the cost of living was that high?
No. That would be rather suicidal for my current position after all.
I do not make 16.50. Although sometimes, admittedly, I do come close. It's a tip job, after all. >People find group housing here, and it isn't really that bad.
It's absurd to me that you have to have group housing to survive on minimum wage.
That's something I did when I was working no
job, just what I had over the summer, in College. If you're having to turn to that working full time, I really think you should look in to moving. It's going ot be hard as hell to get out of poverty otherwise, I'd say. >Have you asked an actual Californian whether it sucks?
The people I know there are making well, well above minimum wage.
They seem to like it. I figure that's because they can afford it.
I've not thought to talk to the homeless people in the McDonalds about how much they love California last time I visited, though, no.> Or do you just assume it sucks because it sounds terrible to you?
People generally use the standards they
hold to determine if something's terrible.
Not standards of other people.
I do not say "North Korea a great place" because some people in North Korea are brainwashed to think it's fine. Nor do I say Saudi Arabia is a great place, because Saudis like having religious authoritarian control. I tend to base quality on my own, personal standards.> But, give me something with actual meat in it if you want to say a place is "terrible".
I believe I have. I'm honestly not sure why you seem to be so emotionally tied to the place.
It's just a state. Just like any other. My opinion about the place is just my opinion. I'll say I have reasons for it, and I'm not one of those 'you can't say opinions are wrong' types. But, it's not exactly something that should effect you so much.>I am giving you that opportunity right now and I don't feel like this is close to enough to justify your claim.
Okay, but, I feel it was, and I haven't really been presented with anything contrary to those feelings.> You aren't even balancing out the really good things about California with your one bad thing.
In the context of the thread, what is there to say? If you're wealthy, you can survive just fine?
Not exactly a glowing endorsement from someone like me. I'm not wealthy.
Ok, well I guess we have different standards for providing evidence to a claim. I would argue by your standard I could make that broad blanket claim that any place on the planet is terrible. Not specifically for the cost of living, but I am sure I can find one bad thing about any place and take it from there. So I believe yours is a bad standard and you should adopt a higher level of rigor in what you use as evidence for a statement so that your claims have more weight behind them.
Maybe the claim you should have been making is "California would be a terrible place for me to live", because that is what your evidence points to. That would have not ruffled any feathers with me.
I think when you make a blanket statement (which when you keep saying "context of the thread", I'm thinking maybe you didn't mean to be saying California as a whole is terrible. it's important when saying something like this that you include everything to be understood well), we move past the context of the thread. Like, I don't think it is reasonable to jump from "California has terrible housing prices" to a blanket statement like "California is terrible". I hear "California is terrible" all the time and if you aren't a resident, then the only reason is because CA is the big liberal place with the big liberal policies. It's the same with libs calling Texas or the deep south a dump without ever being there. I've been there, Texas is a lovely place with lovely people, despite many things I could point out as being (by your definition) "terrible". I might also point out you also said "Get the hell out of that overpriced dump." That does not sound like a person who is only making a claim about the high prices of the place. That is something said by someone who has a really strong bias against the place and is taking that beef into the thread.
I'm pretty much done with this here, agree to disagree I guess. But, whether I'm right or wrong about you, if you don't want people to assume that you are making an aggressive political statement, don't talk exactly like people who make aggressive political statements. The way we present our arguments is very important to clear communication.
Okay. You say so, I guess. Personally, I think I did provide enough evidence, unless you're saying the OP was lying or something.
I just used their information after all.>Maybe the claim you should have been making is "California would be a terrible place for me to live", because that is what your evidence points to. That would have not ruffled any feathers with me.
Well, I think it's really quite a lot less to do with me, to be quite honest with you. But, next time, instead of simply saying it's terrible in the context of a thread about how California's minimum wage is not survivable, I'll just explain why I believe that is the case first.> Like, I don't think it is reasonable to jump from "California has terrible housing prices" to a blanket statement like "California is terrible".
Well, I don't think that was the jump.
The jump was that it is not possible to survive on minimum wage in California.
In that regard, saying California is terrible seems rather reasonable to me. You should not live there if you are poor, is essentially how I see it. >I hear "California is terrible" all the time and if you aren't a resident, then the only reason is because CA is the big liberal place with the big liberal policies.
Yes, I believe this is unfortunately the issue. It's something I should've expected, given my dealings with another californian poster ages ago. Unfortunately that was a long time back, and so I didn't think of it.
I don't really get it. I mean, I'm from Alabama. We get all kinds of shit. Hell, people're insanely rude if you tell them you're from Alabama. They assume you're an idiot, and a racist most the time. And the running meme any time anything mentioning incest is to reply with just "Alabama".
Still, I'd hardly take such offense at calling it terrible. Maybe if you called the people terrible, though. Different standards for different folk, I suppose.>" That does not sound like a person who is only making a claim about the high prices of the place
Doesn't it? The word "Overpriced" would seem to be the driving factor. If you were to pick at any wordplay, I would've started with the "So this isn't surprising" aspect. Though that was mainly in regards to how much you hear of homelessness, housing criseses, people leaving, and so on.
I'd call a place charging me 30$ for a microscopic portion of food an overpriced dump as well, if it helps.>But, whether I'm right or wrong about you, if you don't want people to assume that you are making an aggressive political statement, don't talk exactly like people who make aggressive political statements
So should, by that logic, I assume you're some deep end liberal type who'd call anyone on the right wing an evil racist, condemn capitalism, and desire to ban cars?
Let's not be absurd here. To assume, as the saying goes, only makes an ass out of me and you. If you want clarification to justify that assumption, simply ask.
I'll watch my language next time as I have been told to by staff, but, I'm not going to change my beliefs or positions because people do not have the decency to approach me honestly instead of pulling wanton assumptions of my character as you've done.
In the sense that what I said could be taken as offensive and does not need to be so, I'm perfectly fine with changing that particular aspect of behavior. Certainly it's no skin off my back to, instead of saying "california is a terrible place" in a thread on living wage, say "California has an absurdly high cost of living that it is impractical to live their as a poor person. It's likely why they have so much homelessness, as well as why so many move out of the state.". It's certainly a bit more longer winded, but, clarity often requires a text wall, sadly.
I'm certainly not
about to change my behavior because people will make hostile assumptions about me and my character without bothering to actually speak to me and explore my beliefs. Those people, to be quite frank, are not people I care to consider.
This isn't a perfect analogy, but I think the point stands regardless. If you prefer, you can tell a traffic cop that there was other people who were speeding as well, you can tell him it's unfair that you are the one getting the ticket, but that isn't a good argument to the cop. There are more speeders than cops, and there is a bit of a judgement call on the cops part whether the speeding is egregious enough to be pulled over. Would it be better if we put hundreds of thousands of cops out there and told them to pull over every single speeder? Well it would be fairer! But it doesn't function as a system. I think that's a pretty decent analogy.>>3325
Eh, California is my home. The statement you originally made, specifically that blanket statement, you can not back up and it was provocative and hostile towards my home. That's pretty not cool. Please put in the time to give the details necessary to state what you mean next time and we will all get on well I think. This board isn't really for shooting from the hip, you know.
I think it's fair to say that the mother is doing her time and contributing to society, if not simply by reproducing and caring for a child, then surely through her job at a bank. She should be able to live, and not just barely and at minimum, but comfortably. Something here needs to change on some level, and I don't think that change needs to come through her. Just a few ideas coming from the image:
1) She loses nearly 20% of her income to taxes. Removing said income tax would basically already solve the problem. Perhaps not for everyone, but I assume this isn't a solitary unique example that's never repeated.
2) Housing is way too expensive there. It's dramatically cheaper in other places. For $1600 here I get a 4 bed, 3 bath house with a nice yard, and I'm not out in the middle of nowhere or something, either, I'm less than a half hour away from the state capitol and surrounded by amenities even if I don't drive that far. Something absolutely has to be done. More housing seems like the obvious solution, but perhaps even just limiting the amount you can charge someone for rent isn't too insane an idea.
3) After school childcare is the second largest expense on this bill. Perhaps public schools should just include that, free of charge. This is something I could see the government subsidizing in order keep the country's wheels greased.
Likewise, please don't make incredibly hostile assumptions about people's character and belief. It's not something you were able to back up, after all, either. It's provocative and hostile towards me
as an actual individual instead of just a place. It's pretty not cool. Please put in the time to give the benefit of the doubt to others and actually ask them what they mean or think or feel instead of insulting them, and next time we will all get along well I think. This board isn't really for making hostile assumptions of other people, you know.
My short answer is that I think school, in general, needs a more practical curriculum.
I think college should be available for people who wish to pursure more after the basics.
>>3251>How should this hypothetical single mom earn her livable wage?
Through prostitution, of course.
How does a single dad turn tricks?
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but regardless I need to say this.
The truly insideous thing about capitalism is that it slowly erodes our sense of compassion and fairness, until you selling your bodily autonomy to survive while the guy who pushes stacks of money back and forth for a living eat's gold-plated pizza out of a bath of caviar down the street, is accepted as legitimate and natural situation.
I would call that a critique of the stock market, more than capitalism.
The stock market is the main problem with corporations as a whole in this country oh, I would agree. But I do not think it is a problem with capitalism. especially given all the government laws and protections and other such things specifically for that type of action.
Incidentally, I do not think prostitution or sex work in general is a bad thing. People should be free to do as they choose, including pursuing working such things if they desire. That should be their business and nobody else's. If you want to talk about them being pressured into it, by all means, investigate that, but I do not think the action on its own is wrong.
it can be generalize further than the stockmarket, though. It doesn't have to be speculative investment that pays for this kind of extravagant lifestyle, you can also make the same type of money by owning a housing block or a large factory in china, or a fast food chain. These are all practices by which a large amount of wealth ensure the continuation of that wealth, merely by you having it and extracting surplus value from the labor of others.
I mean we're all pressured into work under capitalism, or we'll die. That's kind of a truism, doesn't need investigation.
Except for of course, if we happen to own some of the above-mentioned assets (capital), then you can coast by most of the time.
Also the financial sector in the US is most definitely busted. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77
You know, the protections you speak of, they don't seem to be doing so well. Maybe because the US is essentially a plutocracy.
I wouldn't really consider Chinese business a matter of capitalism. They are hardly a free market, after all, and mainly stand out because of how much they exploit the market. I would blame that one more on globalism. Personally, I would outright refuse to trade with them, given the way their whole system is wrong. Not only on economic grounds, but human rights as well.
You have a point more towards land ownership, but I don't really see a good way out of that one. Other than deurbanization, anyway. Frankly, if you ask me, cities are the primary source of most these problems to begin with.
there is plenty of cheap land outside of city is. And there's very little reason these days to stay in a city. That's why I would like to see a specific fun for the poorest to get out of cities. Or potentially states that have an insanely high cost of living.
either way, though, I would describe this as a problem of urbanization, rather than capitalism, given the same problem anywhere there was cities. After all, those who had the land originally in those cities controlled who could use it and when. Removing land ownership isn't what I'd consider a good idea, but that seems to be the only way around it.>You know, the protections you speak of, they don't seem to be doing so well. Maybe because the US is essentially a plutocracy
Exactly! these so-called protections, argues to somehow support fairness in the worker, are nearly always exploited by the very top. they seem to only exist to harm anyone that would dare try to build capital of their own, and use it to rival those big businesses.
it's terrible. The system is broken at the moment. I don't think that's the fault of capitalism, rather, I would blame corrupt governments and corporate cronyists.
>>3437>They are hardly a free market
A free market isn't required for capitalism? And china definitely practices it. China's economy is a form of state capitalism, although it markets itself as a precurser to socialism, just as lenin did. Scholars generally accept that both systems marketed themselves this way because it's a way to appeal to a revolutionary spirit in the public, but technically speaking, they are definitively not socialistic or communistic forms of organization.
It's also really weird that when something problematic happens in the US you point to a lack of regulation as the problem, and when it happens in china you point to the fact that it's overly regulated. Is there any point at which you would consider whether capitalism was the source of these kinds of problems?>urbanization
Sure I mean that's the environment in which the types of exploitation we talked about play out now.
And before major cities it was feudalism, right?
I mean, I can list examples off all day of how capitalism does this. I'm comfortable accepting that it's a feature of the system.
Not that you need examples to sort of implicate capitalism in this way, I think the more concrete proof lies in economic models and such that point to the ways in which capitalism has to systemically exploit labor forces in order to even function as a system.>I don't think that's the fault of capitalism, rather, I would blame corrupt governments and corporate cronyists.
Okay, sure. Agree to disagree.
And also to follow up on my sort of rebuttal to this idea of well it does happen but it's all urbanisms fault.
If you're in rural areas then it's a lack of diverse job possibilities that forces you to undersell your abilities, thereby heightening the surplus value of the work you do, and funnelling the difference to the capitalist. It's small monopolies in towns having the ability to overcharge, opportunistic moneylending, intermediary buyers that can undercut actual value of farmed goods significantly because they own the logistical networks needed to resell the goods and so forth.
And of course there's this idea that this is all okay, because if someone does "work hard" and manages to buy their own logistical network, or accumulate enough capital to become a loanshark themselves, well then the system has proven that it's effective by letting the most efficient workers rise to the top.
Only, and this is the fundamental failing of what we think of as capitalistic meritocracies in many cases, you now have a very competent farmer running a logistical network. There's no guarantee of carryover between these different skillsets. And furthermore exploitation is not lessened by this ability to change roles, every person that rises to the top in this way, is simply another capitalist, trying to get a slice of the surplus labor value from the people. one more person, motivated to find more ways to wring the proletariat dry.
At that point, it seems so bastardized, I would hardly consider it a capitalist system. It would seem to me like calling some tyrannical backwater where there is only one person to vote for mandated by the soldiers posted outside every voting booth a "democracy", and then consequently blaming democracy for the failings in that country.>It's also really weird that when something problematic happens in the US you point to a lack of regulation as the problem
I don't believe I did that. Might have made a mistake, or the phone simply misunderstood what I was saying, given that I'm dictating into it.
the issues with corporate America is primarily one of the regulations that are specifically engineered to advantage them. I thought I said that specifically. Guess not.
there are regulations we could introduce that would help, but you have to make sure these aren't ones that are causing trouble for potential competitors.>And before major cities it was feudalism, right?
Exactly. It wasn't the Freeman living out away from Lords and kings, who ended up getting exploited. It was always the peasantry concentrated and subjugated consequently.
If we're going to make blanket statements about capitalism, saying that capitalism is at fault for all these troubles, then I would say I reserve the right to say the exact same thing for urbanization. It's always the cities that are exploited near as I can tell. Whenever you concentrate people, the corrupt end up in power over those people. It is why I am a big advocate of deurbanization
>>3444>If you're in rural areas then it's a lack of diverse job possibilities that forces you to undersell your abilities,
I would be inclined to disagree, give him that I'm in those areas, and I certainly don't feel the need to undersell my abilities. After all, I require far less to survive. costs of living is lower in rural areas, therefore I can be far more choosy about the job I picked. The requirement of transportation to get most things I need means that I always have the capability to drive somewhere for work. and so I can choose not just based on one single town, as you seem to imply, but rather, the entire area. Even some cities if I so choose, given they're often the same amount of a drive.
Perhaps you have a different idea of a rural system that I do.
I am not thinking small towns in the middle of nowhere. That's after all a facet of urbanization. That's people gathering together, as opposed to spreading out. A small town may be small, but it's still a concentration.
I am of the opinion we should avoid that concentration.
I'm not really sure the angle you're trying to go with with the whole labor value thing to begin with, though. labor is the only worth what you are willing to accept, and the other person is willing to pay. That's it. It's like any other commodity on the planet. It's not valued at hours worked, or the project you might create. It's value is purely off of your own negotiation. As is everything in the world.
It's something of a fundamental disagreement I've always had with marx. At least as far as some of the works I've read of his.
To be quite Frank, I don't think he understood basic economics. I'm sure he was a smart guy, but, he had this weird notion that, at least the parts I've read, and as I've understood them, any labor done that create something worth more then what that labor is getting paid is unjust. I do not agree.
>>3448>At that point, it seems so bastardized, I would hardly consider it a capitalist system.
China has all the prerequisite qualities to be called a capitalist system. It's not a matter of whether it's tyrannical, or whether you personally dislike it, the means of production are organized in private- and state owned business, ergo it's capitalistic.>the issues with corporate America is primarily one of the regulations that are specifically engineered to advantage them. I thought I said that specifically.
I would take that even further, and say that corporate america cannot help but exploit the workers because that's how capitalism functions as a model, and then there's this additional problem of them essentially having complete control of legislation.>It wasn't the free man living out away from Lords and kings
Sure, but that kind of agrarian society not subject to rule typically isn't capitalistic.
You've named a thing that is essentially pre-capitalism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/precapitalist/ch01.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/precapitalist/ch02.htm
>>3449>I would be inclined to disagree, give him that I'm in those areas, and I certainly don't feel the need to undersell my abilities. After all, I require far less to survive. costs of living is lower in rural areas, therefore I can be far more choosy about the job I picked. The requirement of transportation to get most things I need means that I always have the capability to drive somewhere for work. and so I can choose not just based on one single town, as you seem to imply, but rather, the entire area. Even some cities if I so choose, given they're often the same amount of a drive.>Perhaps you have a different idea of a rural system that I do.
I've been to this specific part of Alabama, I think even if you feel you have a relative amount of freedom, we can still point to the vast majority of people as underselling their labor value, as they live on minimum wage payrolls working jobs like supermarket bakers and cashiers, and so forth. I think the same picture also emerges if you look at the employment statistics of the state.>I am of the opinion we should avoid that concentration.
See above, you're essentially describing some very pre-capitalist systems.>It's not valued at hours worked, or the project you might create. It's value is purely off of your own negotiation.
I think labor value is a better metric by which to judge the value of a product. This is economic theory, and you can choose to conceptualize things anyway you want, but there are plenty of good reasons to choose to define the value of goods and services in terms of the labor needed to extract and transform raw materials, as this is one of the most objective measures for what it requires to produce something and therefore also, how people would be rewarded under an egalitarian system.>To be quite Frank, I don't think he understood basic economics.
lol, okay, I guess you're not going to agree with the links I posted then.
This is a hilarious thing to say, btw.
Doesn't matter as far as the determinitation of whether it's a capitalistic system, then it's just closer to state-capitalism
either way, a very large portion of the business here is western businesses
I'll explain more.
Core to the ideas of socialism and communism are the trends towards ownership of the means of production by the workers who do the production. A communistic society is essentially a stateless and classless society, in which the primary principle of economic (if you can call it economics at this point, not sure if you can) organization is from each according to their ability to each according to their need.
In the same way that many tyrannical regimes are "democracies". Sure.>I would take that even further, and say that corporate america cannot help but exploit the workers because that's how capitalism functions as a model, and then there's this additional problem of them essentially having complete control of legislation.
I would disagree. I do not think it is something inherent with capitalism
, rather I think it's something inherent with cronyistic governments who facilitate corrupt standards.
Though I suspect you and I disagree on what "exploitation" is.>Sure, but that kind of agrarian society not subject to rule typically isn't capitalistic.
But Clam brought up feudalism in regards to concentrations of populations.>You've named a thing that is essentially pre-capitalism.
I didn't. You just missed the context of this particular line of discussion.
Which I have to admit is a bit odd, considering it's greentexted.
I mean, you know what greentext is, right?
It's a quote. It's referring to the post prior. The one I was replying to. The one that brought up feudalism
Well, I'd have to see those statistics for my area, because where I am pays well above minimum wage for most jobs.
I suspect you're looking at the whole of Alabama. I'm sure the state as a whole's different. Though, that still leaves the cost of living aspect.>See above, you're essentially describing some very pre-capitalist systems.
Above was nonsense. You presumed I named a thing that is "pre-capitalism" because I responded to someone else's statements. What I've said here has absolutely nothing to do with pre-capitalist systems. It's just about not concentrating in cities. That's all. That does not necessitate pre-capitalist systems. I have no idea why you brought up pre-capitalist systems ,to be quite honest with you, given the context clearly shows I was responding to a specific statement made.>I think labor value is a better metric by which to judge the value of a product.
I think it works absolutely horribly. Time worked is not necessarily how much I want to pay. Labor value is meaningless to me. I'm not going to care that you spent three years carving some stick, it's still a piece of junk to me. I'm not paying extra for it.>the value of goods and services in terms of the labor needed to extract and transform raw materials, as this is one of the most objective measures for what it requires to produce something
I'd disagree that it is objective. The requirements vary wildly, depending on quality of workers, industrialization, and simple logistics.
If I can flip 5 pizzas in about 5 minutes, but another guy takes 2 minutes each pizza, his labor is not somehow worth more because it took longer.
My solution would be just to set up a fund people can use after a set amount of time that gives basic moving capital.
Basically, enough to get started somewhere else. Pay for your basic transportation and a bit of rent.
I think you'd find development start naturally as a result. People'd move where the cost of living is low, and work is available. Demand would end up spreading out, and thus, equalize better.
Granted, this idea is expensive. But, so is welfare, and better-off citizens can be taxed. So, hopefully, it should balance out. Granted, that's idealism at play there.
Yes, and that business is a product of globalism. Something I am entirely in favor of stopping.
It'd solve the issues around that particular facet of 'captialism'