Official News topic

[Jomei]

Zohran is at most going to be the mayor of NYC right now. If he succeeds and is popular in that role, what's next? The House? The Senate? Governor? ... the White House? Can you imagine what a living hell this country would be if we all had to have free childc*re or a higher minimum w*ge?

It's an interesting question. Did you try to imagine it?

For me, it would mean higher taxes for a service I don't use and higher prices. It could also lead to scarcity in low-level positions some of this poorer population subsists on as more companies see a bigger incentive to automize as many of their jobs as possible. There would also be an increased incentive to allow in and secretly (under)pay illegal immigrants in various industries.

From congressional Joint Economic Committee findings on the effects of raising the minimum wage:
● Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers, particularly during economic downturns;
● Encouraging employers to cut worker training;
● Increasing job turnover;
● Discouraging part-time work and reducing school attendance;
● Driving workers into uncovered jobs, thus reducing wages in those sectors;
● Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits;
● Encouraging employers to install laborsaving devices;
● Increasing inflationary pressure;
● Increasing teenage crime rates as a result of higher unemployment; and
● Encouraging employers to hire illegal aliens.

Other studies have found that companies compensate for minimum wage costs by reducing the size of raises, minimizing the number of hours available to work, increasing the amount of work that's expected from workers, insisting work be completed faster, and firing workers more quickly if they under-perform.

When progressives and dems talk about these things, they always act as if making things "free" or forcing employers to pay people more is some magic panacea without tradeoffs. But even if you think that's justified, the second and third-order consequences are usually more complicated.

[LSD Jellyfish]

When progressives and dems talk about these things, they always act as if making things "free" or forcing employers to pay people more is some magic panacea without tradeoffs. But even if you think that's justified, the second and third-order consequences are usually more complicated.

Yes, which is why the implementation of higher minimum wages needs to be well-thought out and incrementally increased over a long period of time.

When I was working during college, I worked a job that was a minimum wage job. During that time period, the minimum wage went up twice IIRC, over a span of 2 years. One year it was 12 to 13.5 and then 13.5 to 15. The overall difference between 12 and 15 is gigantic when you’re working 40 to 60 hours a week. HOWEVER, you’re right that it came with a lot of drawbacks, including my ability to basically work more than 40 being severely curtailed.

Wages should be raised, but it should be incremental, and be more a necessity of a changing economy in the long term rather than something substantial suddenly on a whim.

Also, I’m watching a few of my friends in NYC meltdown over Zohran, both for and against him. A friend of mine, who likes Trump, weirdly said something supportive about Zohran:

“You don’t get it. He’s going to finally shut the commies up. Or his policies are going to be successful and we’ll all benefit. It’s a win-win.”

That’s basically how I feel about it all.

Added in 3 minutes 30 seconds:

Plus that POS Adams is running as an independent.

A paraphrase from an argument from my friends:
“Zohran is an inexperienced well-meaning idiot, we need someone older with more experience in politics”.
“Yeah well, Adams is older and the current mayor. All he’s experienced in is taking bribes”

[miguelnuva]

Cuomo concedes the primary but is not dropping out of the race. People booted his ass out as governor so why the hell did he think they'd elect him to become mayor. Plus that POS Adams is running as an independent. Guy might as well just become a Republican, he already basically is one anyway. The establishment Dems would rather let this party die and give the opposition free reign than actually electing candidates that actually wanna fight and change people's lives for the better. The party is at its lowest approval in history because of them and yet they still refuse to relinquish control.

The President is a convicted felon and has been accused of rape and sexual harassment with some evidence pointing to some victims being minors and he won the white house with flying colors. I could see Cuomo thinking he had a chance at mayor considering Trump is president again.

[MC_Lovecraft]

● Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers, particularly during economic downturns;
● Encouraging employers to cut worker training;
● Increasing job turnover;
● Discouraging part-time work and reducing school attendance;
● Driving workers into uncovered jobs, thus reducing wages in those sectors;
● Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits;
● Encouraging employers to install laborsaving devices;
● Increasing inflationary pressure;
● Increasing teenage crime rates as a result of higher unemployment; and
● Encouraging employers to hire illegal aliens.

Terrifying. All things that already happen and are happening in this country, but terrifying, I'm sure.

My honest question to you is, what would be your suggested solution? Assuming you agree that there's a crisis involving what people are paid in this country and how much essentials cost, what would be an ideal approach to solving it, if raising the minimum wage is such a Pandora's Box?

[Jomei]

Scrap and build.

[LSD Jellyfish]

Scrap and build.

No matter how wonderful (or dystopian) your ideas are, remember that great leaps forward (Chinese revolution/USSR, other big regime shifts), often end horrendously and Ineffectually.

Liberals and people on the far right tend to have opposing idealized versions of society, but usually they tend to fail to acknowledge that we can’t change human nature, and any attempt to do so will inevitably result in suffering.

[Jomei]

Scrap and build.

No matter how wonderful (or dystopian) your ideas are, remember that great leaps forward (Chinese revolution/USSR, other big regime shifts), often end horrendously and Ineffectually.

Hey, you're the one excited about Mamdani, not me!!! I'm not supporting the guy who wants to shift more taxes to "richer and whiter" areas. Take it up with the race communist!

[Spirit Ghidorah 2010]

I don't mind my taxes going up so long as it benefits poor people.

Would be a better use of my money than golf trips, ICE kidnapping parties, or that fucking parade at any rate.

[MC_Lovecraft]

Scrap and build.

Thank you for an honest answer.

I don't mind my taxes going up so long as it benefits poor people.

Would be a better use of my money than golf trips, ICE kidnapping parties, or that fucking parade at any rate.

And yes, I have absolutely no objection to "richer" people shouldering a proportionate amount of the burden. "Whiter", sure, them too, but the parasite class in general needs to pay their share.

[Jomei]

You're both free to pay more than you currently do. Send the government a check. Or just donate it it to charities that help poor people directly and skip handing money to a government that supports atrocities in Gaza, etc. But no, it's always about bravely stepping up to volunteer more of other people's money, isn't it?

IMO, and MC's comment above supports it, it's less about helping poor people and more about hurting those who have more. Ressentiment.

[JAGzilla]

I'm sure it varies, but my basic retail stocking job can't feasibly be automated and already runs on minimal staff. If they try to get any more draconian, and they have in the past, it blows up in their faces.

EDIT: Regarding taxing the rich, we're not talking about "people who have more." We're talking about people who have the personal wealth of small countries. Infinitely more than they'll ever need. They can pay more in taxes each year than I'm going to earn in my lifetime and literally not notice the money is gone. It makes no difference whatever to them. It's not unfair to make sure they step up and give their fair share back.

[Jomei]

. It's not unfair to make sure they step up and give their fair share back.

You must define "fair" in a very specific way.

The average income tax rate in 2021 was 14.9 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.9 percent average rate, nearly eight times higher than the 3.3 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.

"They won't notice it's gone" sounds like the rationalization of a kid stealing from a parent's wallet.

[MC_Lovecraft]

You're both free to pay more than you currently do. Send the government a check. Or just donate it it to charities that help poor people directly and skip handing money to a government that supports atrocities in Gaza, etc. But no, it's always about bravely stepping up to volunteer more of other people's money, isn't it?

IMO, and MC's comment above supports it, it's less about helping poor people and more about hurting those who have more. Ressentiment.

Funny how you assume neither of us do that. But the point is, and I think you know it, neither I nor SG10 have the resources to make a real difference in people's lives. The kind of rich people we're talking about could donate more than the two of us might make in our entire lives, put together, in one shot and never miss it. They could really make a difference. So, I think it's fair to expect more of them, and to distain them when they act like society exists for them and only them.

And you know, it can be both? Obviously, I think the people at the bottom, the ones who keep civilization on its feet, deserve to be able to live on what they make. If the best way of doing that is taking from people who have more then they'll ever need, more than they can ever spend, and view the working class as a tragic necessity at best and a potentially contagious disease at best? I'm not going to lose sleep over their hurt feelings.

[Jomei]

You're both free to pay more than you currently do. Send the government a check. Or just donate it it to charities that help poor people directly and skip handing money to a government that supports atrocities in Gaza, etc. But no, it's always about bravely stepping up to volunteer more of other people's money, isn't it?

IMO, and MC's comment above supports it, it's less about helping poor people and more about hurting those who have more. Ressentiment.

Funny how you assume neither of us do that. But the point is, and I think you know it, neither I nor SG10 have the resources to make a real difference in people's lives. The kind of rich people we're talking about could donate more than the two of us might make in our entire lives, put together, in one shot and never miss it. They could really make a difference. So, I think it's fair to expect more of them, and to distain them when they act like society exists for them and only them.

And you know, it can be both? Obviously, I think the people at the bottom, the ones who keep civilization on its feet, deserve to be able to live on what they make. If the best way of doing that is taking from people who have more then they'll ever need, more than they can ever spend, and view the working class as a tragic necessity at best and a potentially contagious disease at best? I'm not going to lose sleep over their hurt feelings.

You insist on taking more and more from the people who make a lot of money to pay for services and support for the poor yet in the same post say it's the people at the bottom who "keep civilization on its feet." Astounding you don't see the contradiction. Astounding, too, to accuse the rich of acting "like society exists for them and only them" while confidently expressing your entitlement to spend their money according to your political preferences. You act as if they exist to serve as your ATM.

I already addressed these appeals to "fairness" above. It's wild to see you in one post call the people you want to take more money from "parasites" and then in the next accuse them of dehumanizing others in their hearts. This type of psychological contradiction is a big reason I walked away from progressivism. So much of the worldview is rooted in the very resentment you're expressing. And rather than thinking of ways to build oneself up, create opportunities, etc. there's often a dark impulse, instead, to tear down those who are more successful. That's why Mamdani's "richer and whiter" mask slip is so telling. Kulaks and subkulaks must be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth!

[Gojira2K]

You're both free to pay more than you currently do. Send the government a check. Or just donate it it to charities that help poor people directly and skip handing money to a government that supports atrocities in Gaza, etc. But no, it's always about bravely stepping up to volunteer more of other people's money, isn't it?

IMO, and MC's comment above supports it, it's less about helping poor people and more about hurting those who have more. Ressentiment.

Funny how you assume neither of us do that. But the point is, and I think you know it, neither I nor SG10 have the resources to make a real difference in people's lives. The kind of rich people we're talking about could donate more than the two of us might make in our entire lives, put together, in one shot and never miss it. They could really make a difference. So, I think it's fair to expect more of them, and to distain them when they act like society exists for them and only them.

And you know, it can be both? Obviously, I think the people at the bottom, the ones who keep civilization on its feet, deserve to be able to live on what they make. If the best way of doing that is taking from people who have more then they'll ever need, more than they can ever spend, and view the working class as a tragic necessity at best and a potentially contagious disease at best? I'm not going to lose sleep over their hurt feelings.

You insist on taking more and more from the people who make a lot of money to pay for services and support for the poor yet in the same post say it's the people at the bottom who "keep civilization on its feet." Astounding you don't see the contradiction. Astounding, too, to accuse the rich of acting "like society exists for them and only them" while confidently expressing your entitlement to spend their money according to your political preferences. You act as if they exist to serve as your ATM.

I already addressed these appeals to "fairness" above. It's wild to see you in one post call the people you want to take more money from "parasites" and then in the next accuse them of dehumanizing others in their hearts. This type of psychological contradiction is a big reason I walked away from progressivism. So much of the worldview is rooted in the very resentment you're expressing. And rather than thinking of ways to build oneself up, create opportunities, etc. there's often a dark impulse, instead, to tear down those who are more successful. That's why Mamdani's "richer and whiter" mask slip is so telling. Kulaks and subkulaks must be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth!

I mean it’s not a contradiction. If you look at how the entire agricultural industry, it is supported by people, usually ones here illegally, who are paid fuck all to do their work. Every vegetable, every fruit is picked by someone who is paid maybe a couple of dollars an hour maximum. This system exists because of rich people at the top of exploiting them for labor because they can’t do anything about it. If the workers try to report it, they have to reveal they are here illegally, and regardless of whether or not they are going through the process becoming legal, will probably deported anyways, especially right now under Trump. So it’s not a contradiction, the people at the bottom are keeping our civilization on its feet, and are kept at the bottom, because of the rich higher ups who think every class below them only exist to prop up their profits and help fill up their bank accounts/net worth.

I mean look at so many other industry in the past few years. Mass layoffs everywhere (usually the lower paid employees, never any of the higher ups who have ridiculously high salaries), rich executives trying to replace people with AI in order to not have to hire more people. Hell, the reason America is in the absolute shitty fascist state it is right now is because of rich people trying to make more and more money at the expense of the American people. Every decision Trump and the Republicans have made, will only help the wealthy. None of them care whether we live or die, they just want to extract every bit of money they can before we do die. Like there is a reason why unions exist in the first place.

The resentment towards the extremely wealthy is real because they kept making it more and more difficult to build one self up or create opportunities. They climb ladder and then kick it down afterwards. Cause if you succeed, that’s just money that is going to you instead of them, and they hate that. All they do, is just horde and horde and horde.

There is the saying, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” You know what? Hundreds of millions to billions does the exact same thing.

[MC_Lovecraft]

You're both free to pay more than you currently do. Send the government a check. Or just donate it it to charities that help poor people directly and skip handing money to a government that supports atrocities in Gaza, etc. But no, it's always about bravely stepping up to volunteer more of other people's money, isn't it?

IMO, and MC's comment above supports it, it's less about helping poor people and more about hurting those who have more. Ressentiment.

Funny how you assume neither of us do that. But the point is, and I think you know it, neither I nor SG10 have the resources to make a real difference in people's lives. The kind of rich people we're talking about could donate more than the two of us might make in our entire lives, put together, in one shot and never miss it. They could really make a difference. So, I think it's fair to expect more of them, and to distain them when they act like society exists for them and only them.

And you know, it can be both? Obviously, I think the people at the bottom, the ones who keep civilization on its feet, deserve to be able to live on what they make. If the best way of doing that is taking from people who have more then they'll ever need, more than they can ever spend, and view the working class as a tragic necessity at best and a potentially contagious disease at best? I'm not going to lose sleep over their hurt feelings.

You insist on taking more and more from the people who make a lot of money to pay for services and support for the poor yet in the same post say it's the people at the bottom who "keep civilization on its feet." Astounding you don't see the contradiction. Astounding, too, to accuse the rich of acting "like society exists for them and only them" while confidently expressing your entitlement to spend their money according to your political preferences. You act as if they exist to serve as your ATM.

I already addressed these appeals to "fairness" above. It's wild to see you in one post call the people you want to take more money from "parasites" and then in the next accuse them of dehumanizing others in their hearts. This type of psychological contradiction is a big reason I walked away from progressivism. So much of the worldview is rooted in the very resentment you're expressing. And rather than thinking of ways to build oneself up, create opportunities, etc. there's often a dark impulse, instead, to tear down those who are more successful. That's why Mamdani's "richer and whiter" mask slip is so telling. Kulaks and subkulaks must be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth!

So, do I understand you properly that everyone who is poor, everyone who is struggling under this rigged system, is to blame for it, because they aren't thinking of ways to "build themselves up, create opportunities"? That they could be successful if they really wanted to, but living paycheck to paycheck is just so darn fun that they keep themselves down for the emotional hit of resenting their betters? Is that what I'm getting here?

And yes, people at the bottom keep civilization on its feet, unless somebody's going to try to make the argument that people whose main contribution is trying not to pay taxes are making a major contribution to the effort. That's what I mean by the rich "acting like society exist for them and only them". The amount of capital they take in is far, far in excess to the help and contribution they make to the world they live in, yet they seem to expect respect, if not outright deference, from the people who make infinitely less money, yet whose work is infinitely more necessary to the function of civilization.

Don't get me wrong, in a just world this wouldn't be an issue. Everyone would be paid a living wage, and successful people would actually succeed on their ability. But in this Late-stage Capitalist fever dream, where a handful of people spend billions on private spaceflights while people who work sixty hours weeks at three jobs are one sickness away from absolute ruin? Something's deeply wrong there, and if requiring folks with more money than some countries cuts down on that suffering? So be it.

EDIT: G2K beat me to it, but I cosign his post.

[Spirit Ghidorah 2010]

You must define "fair" in a very specific way.

The problem with going by income tax alone is that it doesn't take into account income share, with the income of the top 1% growing faster that everyone else's for the past 50 years. Nor does it take into account other taxes like property or sales tax. When you factor those in, the bottom 20% pays the highest percentage of income in local and federal taxes in, like, 40 states. It's why we call it a wealth gap and not an income gap.

Funny how you assume neither of us do that.

Admittedly, I don't. However, I DO volunteer at a food bank and a free clinic. Does that count? I really hope TK doesn't start gatekeeping advocacy for underserved populations!

So much of the worldview is rooted in the very resentment you're expressing...dark impulse

Man, I wish our leaders would use this kind of rhetoric when discussing issues that are actually happening. Seems when it comes to black people getting gunned down on the street, civil unrest in the neighborhoods, folks getting deported without due process, women's health access getting eroded, WWIII getting teased every other week, and LGBT marginalization, it's either a joking matter or a benign nonissue.

But as soon as someone who may or may not become mayor decides he might want to encroach on the defenseless vulnerable upperclassmen, suddenly we as a society need to rise up together and let go of our hate and empathize with each other and become greater than the sum of our parts. After all, theless fortunate get all the breaks!

Hold up, don't tell me YOU were the one who narced on Luigi?!

And rather than thinking of ways to build oneself up, create opportunities, etc.

You forgot the most important step: cutting out avocado toast!

[Jomei]

So, do I understand you properly that everyone who is poor, everyone who is struggling under this rigged system, is to blame for it, because they aren't thinking of ways to "build themselves up, create opportunities"? That they could be successful if they really wanted to, but living paycheck to paycheck is just so darn fun that they keep themselves down for the emotional hit of resenting their betters? Is that what I'm getting here?

No, you do not understand me properly at all. Like, literally all of that is a hallucination on your part. Clearly most people do not have any of the things required to be an absolute top earner. I am not a blank-slatist. That's much more typical of the progressive position, which thus leads them to conclude that inequalities are ipso facto injustice. If someone is working full time and living "paycheck to paycheck," then it's possible they've gotten a raw deal. Life isn't always fair. There are countless possibilities. But it's also very possible they are making some bad decisions. I've worked minimum wage retail and have seen lifers of various kinds. Your view seems to preclude the possibility of anyone's decisions and efforts being a major factor in their lot.

Like, this is true even beyond the far end of the poverty line. I witnessed much of the same phenomenon with grad school. Despite access to everything needed to succeed, many, perhaps most of the students neglected to put in the real effort required to obtain jobs and publications related to their field. There's a strong tendency to just wait for things to happen, get complacent, and then resent the people who actually worked their assess off to achieve something.

(LSD, if you're reading this, you can probably think of the countless people who've muttered about how great it would be to try living in Japan, but they never take the steps to make it happen.)

Look at them yo-yos. That ain't workin'. Money for nothin' and chicks for free.

And yes, people at the bottom keep civilization on its feet, unless somebody's going to try to make the argument that people whose main contribution is trying not to pay taxes are making a major contribution to the effort.

If they require 25%+ of the top 1%'s income to help support them, then by definition, they are not keeping even themselves on their own feet let alone all of civilization. All of these progressive dream policies depend upon the achievements of these people you deride as doing nothing but dodging your taxes. Like you said in your previous post, YOU don't have the means to implement your own goals.

yet they seem to expect respect, if not outright deference, from the people who make infinitely less money, yet whose work is infinitely more necessary to the function of civilization.

You're giving collective credit to individuals. If you pile up all of the unskilled labor into a conceptualized blob, then yeah, that starts to feel important. But the individual contributions to that are microscopic and relatively interchangeable, which is why at the individual level, doing that work has little market value. People understand these rudimentary concepts when they go to buy their Godzilla toys, but somehow when it comes to the labor market, high school economics goes out the window.

I'm not trying to demean low skill workers. I've worked those jobs. (I also got promoted and got raises by working harder/smarter) But you can't lean on the mass concept of "workers" to raise your market value. You, specifically, have to be hard to replace and therefore worth paying more. This means, at a minimum, distinguishing oneself above other workers in what you're currently doing. Simply gesturing toward all of the workers of the world and saying, "See, I'm essential! Pay me more!" will not be sufficient.

Don't get me wrong, in a just world . . . successful people would actually succeed on their ability.

Well, there it is again. People who have succeeded must not have done so with ability, things are "rigged," etc. The resentment.

Look, there is a part of all this that's rigged. The only problem is you're advocating to give it more money. I'm in favor of starving it. We are clearly at an impasse.

@SG
Ah yes, of course. I almost forgot, when you earn more, the government has got to get a taste.

[MC_Lovecraft]

Definitely an impasse, yeah. If you look at the world and say, "looks to be working all right, too bad about the greedy poor people", then I'm not sure we've got a lot to say to each other.

Admittedly, I don't. However, I DO volunteer at a food bank and a free clinic. Does that count? I really hope TK doesn't start gatekeeping advocacy for underserved populations!

I'd call that doing what you can. There's people out there who could do a lot more, and never even feel the pinch, but apparently pointing that out is ressentiment. Oh, well.

[Jomei]

Definitely an impasse, yeah. If you look at the world and say, "looks to be working all right, too bad about the greedy poor people", then I'm not sure we've got a lot to say to each other.

Please don't ever become a ghostwriter.

Anyway, in NEWS, the supreme court has struck down nationwide judicial injunctions .

They also upheld a Texas law requiring ID for cornography and upheld a Tennessee ban on transgender procedures for children.