Illinois 15 dollar/hr incremental raise

[DejaVue]

Originally Posted by PandaBear

The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.

Nobody is holier or more right than the others. Neither me or you, nor other voters.

If that were true, then 99% of the people here would want to tax "the rich" for as much as they can. But most do not.

Also, if that were true, the majority in America (and Europe and Canada) would vote based on certain obvious demographic traits. Lots of other people do that, but they do not. Of course, that is also why they will soon become minorities in those countries.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted by DejaVue
Originally Posted by PandaBear

The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.

Nobody is holier or more right than the others. Neither me or you, nor other voters.

If that were true, then 99% of the people here would want to tax "the rich" for as much as they can. But most do not.

Also, if that were true, the majority in America (and Europe and Canada) would vote based on certain obvious demographic traits. Lots of other people do that, but they do not. Of course, that is also why they will soon become minorities in those countries.

They have the money and shape government policy in their favor while the rest of us fight amongst each other over wedge issues .

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by DejaVue
Originally Posted by PandaBear

The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.

Nobody is holier or more right than the others. Neither me or you, nor other voters.

If that were true, then 99% of the people here would want to tax "the rich" for as much as they can. But most do not.

Also, if that were true, the majority in America (and Europe and Canada) would vote based on certain obvious demographic traits. Lots of other people do that, but they do not. Of course, that is also why they will soon become minorities in those countries.

Millennial now outnumber boomers as being eligible to vote so it should be interesting to see if this holds true assuming they go out and vote because from them voicing their opinions they certainly don't agree with not taxing the rich. Until this point boomers comfortable in their ways having lived a decent life without much struggle have been shaping policies and have little regard for how the world has changed since then because it didn't affect them as much. There is going to be a big shift from the rumblings going on with Millennial.

I'm caught in the middle and doing fine, so I don't care really but I hear both sides.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by DejaVue
Originally Posted by PandaBear

The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.

Nobody is holier or more right than the others. Neither me or you, nor other voters.

If that were true, then 99% of the people here would want to tax "the rich" for as much as they can. But most do not.

Also, if that were true, the majority in America (and Europe and Canada) would vote based on certain obvious demographic traits. Lots of other people do that, but they do not. Of course, that is also why they will soon become minorities in those countries.

Millennial now outnumber boomers as being eligible to vote so it should be interesting to see if this holds true assuming they go out and vote because from them voicing their opinions they certainly don't agree with not taxing the rich. Until this point boomers comfortable in their ways having lived a decent life without much struggle have been shaping policies and have little regard for how the world has changed since then because it didn't affect them as much. There is going to be a big shift from the rumblings going on with Millennial.

I'm caught in the middle and doing fine, so I don't care really but I hear both sides.


Lets see: Millenials that were brought up on 'Participation Trophies' given for no effort, will very likely vote for handouts given with no effort. That will certainly be sustainable in the long term I'm sure.

Venezuela is a shining example...

 

[StevieC]

^^^ Thanks for proving my point and Venezuela is a completely different can of worms and has nothing to do with this.
(I have been there, have you?)

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by grampi


There are many ways to get an education, grants, loans, heck you can even join the military and get an education for free while getting an income. It doesn't matter if people like us think the Walton family doesn't need any more money. They've obviously done something to earn it or they wouldn't have it. That's called capitalism. What you're describing is socialism, that doesn't work in this country...


For some yes. For others no. Bad grades, no co signers, no one to watch the kids, can't pass the military testing, health or emotional issues. ..etc

No , I am describing a capitalism that works for everyone not greed that works for the few. Do you think the top billionaires having as much wealth as the bottom 90% is acceptable capitalism?

But you do realize we have socialism type things here in this country people like right?


I guess I don't get what you're saying should be done. Taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor is the very definition or socialism...


Would you prefer what was done in the next step of National socialism in Germany in the 30's and 40's where they got rid of the mentally disabled and the handicapped in medical institutions? After all, they were supported by the money from the rich.


I'm not the one advocating socialism...

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by StevieC
^^^ Thanks for proving my point and Venezuela is a completely different can of worms and has nothing to do with this.
(I have been there, have you?)


No kidding I was proving your point. Those used to handouts, will of course want to keep the gravy train running. Until it fails because too many decide that handouts are easier than working...


As for Venezuela: Yes, I have been there. I've traveled all around the world.

 

[StevieC]

I'm used to handouts? Really. I worked for everything I have thank you and it was a very tough road with my back injury and the economy in the last few decades.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I'm used to handouts? Really. I worked for everything I have thank you and it was a very tough road with my back injury and the economy in the last few decades.


Reading comprehension lacking? Did I say you specifically? I said "Those used to handouts, will of course want to keep the gravy train running."

Were you brought up on participation trophies, and expect to be taken care of for life with no effort on your part?

I am referring to those precious kiddies that feel entitled to be taken care of, simply because they have been taught they are so extra special. They will vote to keep the gravy train running.

Obviously that's not all MiIlenials, thankfully.

 

[StevieC]

You said it in the same sentence to something you were replying to me on, how was I supposed to take it? It felt implied.

Both my siblings (millennials) were the participation ribbon kids and couldn't fail a grade and they turned out just fine. My sister lives in the middle east making plenty of cash with her teaching degree and my brother is a Mechanical Engineer that now teaches at MiT and runs his own company on the side doing life saving research for 3rd world countries and their infants. All of his friends seem to be decent folks as well. I know a lot of them as I used to be my brothers driver to go anywhere and was the only one that had a license.

Does the Millennial group have its issues? Yes, but the only ones I hear complaining are the boomers and it's usually unfounded, all the stats prove contrary to what rhetorical nonsense boomers spout off about millennial.
(Again the masses, not one off cases. There are "troubled" folks in every group.)

And just so no one thinks I'm some internet B.S.er here is an article on my brother... LINK

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Wolf359

Would you prefer what was done in the next step of National socialism in Germany in the 30's and 40's where they got rid of the mentally disabled and the handicapped in medical institutions? After all, they were supported by the money from the rich.


I'm not the one advocating socialism...


I don't think you understood my point. The next step to get rid of the handouts is to get rid of the people who need them. How long do you think the handicapped would survive if you got rid of social security disability?

Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that people seem to fail to think where the logical conclusions of their policy proposals lead.

It's one thing to criticize and propose drastic solutions, it's another to propose something that will actually work. So far I see absolutely nothing that would work. It's just like yelling at the clouds.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted by StevieC
You said it in the same sentence to something you were replying to me on, how was I supposed to take it? It felt implied.

[off-topic]
Stevie,
Is it me or you kind of became kind of "touchy" in the past few months?

I usually enjoy your topics (but do suffer when you go into post overload, hard to keep up).
No sense on getting worked up on an internet post that was not even directioned at you, and even if it was, maybe it was a case of internet tone miss-representation.

YOLO! (You Only Live Once)
You already managed to reign in something that kills many.
Be proud of that and smell the roses!

Best of wishes!
[/off-topic]

 

[javacontour]

And we all disagree with what that looks like.

Personally, I believe looking out for both my best interests and the best interests of my fellow man means guarding our freedom.

So I'm against authoritarianism, be it left leaning or right leaning.

That way, people are free to put into practice their manner of both looking out for self and for others.

If someone wants to give their money to politicians to cater to "the greater good" I'd not prevent them from writing such checks.

I simply want the freedom to say no, I think there is a better way.

I think that's the source of much of our division today. Regardless where any individual falls on an issue, there seem to be a large number who have a view that is diametrically opposed. What would happen if instead of trying to prevail politically to have our opposing values imposed on others we were simply free to live out our values?

Many politicians would be out of work, and I believe many of the divisions we see would evaporate when people are allowed to simply live their values.

Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by javacontour
I suspect half or more of the participants here are not in favor of such government transfer payments.


The politicians have done their math to know what will get the votes. At least they would have done enough to know better than you, especially when it passed as law.

The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.

Nobody is holier or more right than the others. Neither me or you, nor other voters.

 

[StevieC]

Pandus,

No I just have more time at this time of year (slow for us) and I like good conversation but have a low tolerance for B.S. and won't hesitate to get into it with someone if they either start it or I feel the need because it's just nonsense. It just seems like a lot because I comment on a lot of things is all.

Although there are a few folks here that seem to like to jump all over me at every chance they get so that usually gets the posts going as well.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by ZZman
I would much rather see people at the bottom make livable wages than give even more wealth to those who really don't need it.

Originally Posted by ZZman
Does the Walton family really need more billions each or could that be put to better use by their employees that need it just to live?

I'm seeing a lot of this in your posts. First off, just who exactly is "giving" wealthy people their wealth? Secondly, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide what anyone "needs", as far as setting some nebulous amount of wealth that people are "allowed" to possess, before you think it should be taken from them? Just how much is, "too much"? And who sets that limit, people without a pot to pee in?

And more importantly, what gives you, or any other socialist thinker the right to play Robin Hood, and take it away from those who earned it, and give it to someone who doesn't have it or deserve it? How do you, "create wealth" by constantly taking and dividing it? What do you think is going to happen to this, "fair business model" of yours, that is going to be so instrumental in, "leveling the playing field", when you run out of wealthy people to take it from? Exactly where will it come from then, government printing presses?

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by ZZman
I would much rather see people at the bottom make livable wages than give even more wealth to those who really don't need it.

Originally Posted by ZZman
Does the Walton family really need more billions each or could that be put to better use by their employees that need it just to live?

I'm seeing a lot of this in your posts. First off, just who exactly is "giving" wealthy people their wealth? Secondly, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide what anyone "needs", as far as setting some nebulous amount of wealth that people are "allowed" to possess, before you think it should be taken from them? Just how much is, "too much"? And who sets that limit, people without a pot to pee in?

And more importantly, what gives you, or any other socialist thinker the right to play Robin Hood, and take it away from those who earned it, and give it to someone who doesn't have it or deserve it? How do you, "create wealth" by constantly taking and dividing it? What do you think is going to happen to this, "fair business model" of yours, that is going to be so instrumental in, "leveling the playing field", when you run out of wealthy people to take it from? Exactly where will it come from then, government printing presses?


In simple terms money doesn't grow on trees. It comes from somewhere. For businesses owners/CEO's and investors etc it comes from people. Investors don't work or earn their money. The workers do the work. Business owners and CEOs don't run the company by themselves. They have workers that help them. They have customers that make them wealthy. It is a cycle, a circle. You need them all to succeed.

Why give rich people an ever increasing piece of the pie when they can't eat what they already have. Why not spread the pie out to some of the others who are hungry and could use it. They can still have a huge piece but why not share ?

I could set an arbitrary amount if you wish. I think anyone making more than 100 times the median income of the average American doesn't "need" any more than that per year in income. So billionaires are way over the "need" threshold.

Are you telling me people wouldn't still be rich and extremely comfortable on that?

Would we not have a better and kinder society if wealth inequality was smaller . In a 70% consumer driven society I say yes.

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by ZZman
I would much rather see people at the bottom make livable wages than give even more wealth to those who really don't need it.

Originally Posted by ZZman
Does the Walton family really need more billions each or could that be put to better use by their employees that need it just to live?

I'm seeing a lot of this in your posts. First off, just who exactly is "giving" wealthy people their wealth? Secondly, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide what anyone "needs", as far as setting some nebulous amount of wealth that people are "allowed" to possess, before you think it should be taken from them? Just how much is, "too much"? And who sets that limit, people without a pot to pee in?

And more importantly, what gives you, or any other socialist thinker the right to play Robin Hood, and take it away from those who earned it, and give it to someone who doesn't have it or deserve it? How do you, "create wealth" by constantly taking and dividing it? What do you think is going to happen to this, "fair business model" of yours, that is going to be so instrumental in, "leveling the playing field", when you run out of wealthy people to take it from? Exactly where will it come from then, government printing presses?


You will never have a totally level playing field that is unrealistic and unfair. But making the playing field more fair is realistic and better.. That is why the worst teams get first pick. If the best teams always got first pick the game would be very unfair wouldn't you say?
Progressive taxes, estate taxes, raising MW, Unions fighting for workers are all examples of redistributing wealth for the betterment of the majority and those that struggle. Wealth throughout history has always been redistributed. Usually up to the few. Wouldn't it make more sense to redistribute it down to the majority? This doesn't make the wealthy poor. It makes the poor less poor and the middle class bigger.

 

[wings&wheels]

" Investors don't work or earn their money. The workers do the work. Business owners and CEOs don't run the company by themselves. They have workers that help them."

Who are the investors? The employees who hold company shares via ESPP, RSU's, 401K, etc.? The average person holding shares in their mutual funds? The union members whose pension fund is invested? The institutions and PE firms who invest as their business? Whoever these 'investors' are, how did they acquire their capital to invest? Work... Saying investors don't 'earn' is just wrong on many levels....

No CEO's don't run the business alone, and neither do the workers, the accountants, engineers.... But fewer folks have the skillset to be senior leadership than can be workers, and are rewarded accordingly..as well they should.

No one 'gives' the 'rich' anything...I'd love to have an actual example.

We are the land of opportunity and social mobility like no other, imperfect as it is, and I shudder to think of the consequences of some government structured plan to remedy 'inequality'.....

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted by wings&wheels
" Investors don't work or earn their money. The workers do the work. Business owners and CEOs don't run the company by themselves. They have workers that help them."

Who are the investors? The employees who hold company shares via ESPP, RSU's, 401K, etc.? The average person holding shares in their mutual funds? The union members whose pension fund is invested? The institutions and PE firms who invest as their business? Whoever these 'investors' are, how did they acquire their capital to invest? Work... Saying investors don't 'earn' is just wrong on many levels....

No CEO's don't run the business alone, and neither do the workers, the accountants, engineers.... But fewer folks have the skillset to be senior leadership than can be workers, and are rewarded accordingly..as well they should.

No one 'gives' the 'rich' anything...I'd love to have an actual example.

We are the land of opportunity and social mobility like no other, imperfect as it is, and I shudder to think of the consequences of some government structured plan to remedy 'inequality'.....


The reality is the vast majority of stockholders and investors are the wealthy not employees or retirement funds. This is especially true of the top 1% Their money worked for them. They didn't work (wages) to attain it.

I don't know. Do CEO's and such work 100-400 times harder than their average worker or have skill sets 100-400 times better which warrants such compensation? Interesting thought.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted by StevieC
But with Minimum wage earners spending back into the economy at higher rates proportional to their income than CEO's would it make sense that it would drive middle class jobs and thus we would feed the CEO's and wealthy elites? It's a ladder effect right?

We are stalling out because the lower classes are broke.

It's no anomaly that the economy has increased debt load largely at the same time wages have been stagnant and living costs have increased. We can't fix the problem without investment.

You wouldn't expect a return from a bank or financial advisor without investing first would you? They broke the investment loop with cheap offshore labour and then broke it further by stagnating wages when sales missed expectations from breaking it the first time by offshoring things. So their answer? Cut further and this cycle continues but they don't realize one feeds the other.

MADNESS! Definition of insanity is expecting different results without changing anything right? And we know wealthy tax-cuts and corporate tax cuts have the opposite effects. It has been proven time and time again that it doesn't function for the people and only functions for corporations and the wealthy despite the nonsense they keep rehashing. Stats don't lie.


Yes, and basically labor costs are based on supply and demand. If you offshore jobs, there are more people in the labor pool competing for jobs that pay less than the one they lost. This compounds things as two people are now needed to run a household, which further dilutes the labor pool driving down the price of labor.