Prop 205 fails and 206 passes...what is wrong with Zonie voters ? (Phoenix: employment, closing)

[magnum0417]

Lets exclude the coastal CA beachbums and focus on the desert dwellers of inland CA and NV. What reason do people have who reside in Vegas or Palm Springs have to visit Zona given the stuffy political climate here ? Quite sure these desert rats saw a few tourist sites here by now and have no reason to come back when they can enjoy their desert surroundings with a doobie very soon.

[cekkk]

"The government isn't (and shouldn't) be concerned with making sure that no businesses are shut down by a minimum wage increase..."

When govt. interferes with the free market, unintended consequences are the rule, negative ones, generally. So I agree with the statement with the caveat that govt. shouldn't be setting wages in the first place.

This entire discussion is of less importance than the question of what will become of the millions of unemployables that our school system is filling our streets with. Combine that population with the additional millions of literate college graduates that lack needed skills in an increasingly complex and technical world, and we may come closer to a soylent green society than one would like.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by cekkk

When govt. interferes with the free market, unintended consequences are the rule, negative ones, generally. So I agree with the statement with the caveat that govt. shouldn't be setting wages in the first place.

This entire discussion is of less importance than the question of what will become of the millions of unemployables that our school system is filling our streets with. Combine that population with the additional millions of literate college graduates that lack needed skills in an increasingly complex and technical world, and we may come closer to a soylent green society than one would like.

A true free market, is never possible. I'd argue, a true free market is identical to committing crime, except you're not doing it first hand, but behind closed doors essentially starving some people and not others based on the fact that they can't compete in the job market (and no matter the circumstances, someone will be at the bottom). Hence, the need for regulation. Regulation is necessary to encourage and discourage certain behaviors/societal standards that a majority of society deems unacceptable or acceptable. The minimum wage while economically it doesn't make sense from a free market standpoint, it's a moral standard that we as a country adopt as we shouldn't expect people to be working full time for $1/hr and still be starving living on the street because their skills aren't useful in the job market. There's a minimum acceptable standard of living society expects for full time work. Same as how, we have laws that say crime is illegal and you will be punished for it. Therefore, we don't have true personal "freedom" either. "Remove them regulations!"

This is why in my opinion, true capitalism is evil and needs regulation (you'd find many recent examples of this too, i.e Wells Fargo, Big Pharma, etc.). How much regulation? That's up for debate. In it's truest form it promotes people competing against each other for resources that are artifically restricted, essentially I can starve someone else to death because I have the skills to do better than them in the market. Even though it's fair to me, I personally find it completely unacceptable. This is not to say, we have to go to the other extreme to ensure fairness (i.e. socialism). We need some stratification in society so there's a need to do better and compete since innovation is necessary, but we don't need to go to either extremes is the point. Removing the concept of the minimum wage is an extreme view point and you ought to reevaluate the true consequences.

[Sovetsky Medved]

I voted against Prop 205, because we don't need a state full of weed smoking pot heads.
Why in the world would someone want to be stoned out of there mind anyway's. You would just be an Un-Productive Weed smoking Zombie. And I voted for Prop 206, because Companies that are making good profits, need to pay there workers a livable wage. Nobody can live on $8 an hour. Those are 1980's wages and this is 2016. I made $6.75 an hour in 1987, Nowaday's I make $16.75 an hour. Like hell if I would lift a finger for $8 an hour now. And Nobody should.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Sovetsky Medved

I voted against Prop 205, because we don't need a state full of weed smoking pot heads.
Why in the world would someone want to be stoned out of there mind anyway's. You would just be an Un-Productive Weed smoking Zombie.

I agree in principle, but you could say the same thing about alcohol. Why would people want to waste their lives away on drinking when all it does is cause them to be plastered, unproductive, ill tempered losers??? Yet, alcoholic beverages are perfectly legal if you're age 21 or older. Point being that it does no good to keep a substance illegal when people can still get access to it. Basically, if you vote against legalizing marijuana, you're basically saying that it's OK for anybody to obtain & use pot through illegal means.

Originally Posted by Sovetsky Medved

And I voted for Prop 206, because Companies that are making good profits, need to pay there workers a livable wage. Nobody can live on $8 an hour. Those are 1980's wages and this is 2016. I made $6.75 an hour in 1987, Nowaday's I make $16.75 an hour. Like hell if I would lift a finger for $8 an hour now. And Nobody should.

Minimum wages were never meant to be livable. In the 1980s, the minimum wage was between $3 and $4 per hour, and it was difficult to live on those wages back then. Most people who make minimum wage are high school & college students anyway ... or in some cases, people who work full time but have side jobs for extra income which are minimum wage based. By the way, don't expect a raise in your wages because you're making above minimum ... however, the ones who are currently making less than $10 per hour will have an increase very soon. How does it make you feel that the middle class won't see their salaries increase, but will continue to see the cost of living increase?

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I agree in principle, but you could say the same thing about alcohol. Why would people want to waste their lives away on drinking when all it does is cause them to be plastered, unproductive, ill tempered losers??? Yet, alcoholic beverages are perfectly legal if you're age 21 or older. Point being that it does no good to keep a substance illegal when people can still get access to it. Basically, if you vote against legalizing marijuana, you're basically saying that it's OK for anybody to obtain & use pot through illegal means.



Minimum wages were never meant to be livable. In the 1980s, the minimum wage was between $3 and $4 per hour, and it was difficult to live on those wages back then. Most people who make minimum wage are high school & college students anyway ... or in some cases, people who work full time but have side jobs for extra income which are minimum wage based. By the way, don't expect a raise in your wages because you're making above minimum ... however, the ones who are currently making less than $10 per hour will have an increase very soon. How does it make you feel that the middle class won't see their salaries increase, but will continue to see the cost of living increase?

Right wing fear mongering...

[jimj]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Right wing fear mongering...

Prove it wrong then. Facts, not left talking points...

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Right wing fear mongering...

Left wing idiocy...everything in the post you quoted was true. Raising the minimum wage is already having consequences and it has not went into effect yet.

We've already eliminated two positions at work to save money to cover the minimum wage hike. More are to follow.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Left wing idiocy...everything in the post you quoted was true. Raising the minimum wage is already having consequences and it has not went into effect yet.

We've already eliminated two positions at work to save money to cover the minimum wage hike. More are to follow.

That's one viewpoint.

The other viewpoint is, if the owner/shareholders of said company becomes greedy, those positions would have been eliminated regardless of the minimum wage. The minimum wage only speeds up the process but the fundamental problem of companies being greedy still exists. And might I add, there's plenty of statistical evidence to suggest what I said is the case.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by jimj

Prove it wrong then. Facts, not left talking points...

Seattle, they hiked the min wage, and the doom and gloom predictions from the right never happened