U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 05:23 AM
 
37,005 posts, read 16,134,598 times
Reputation: 8411

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Democrats are good with coming up with excessive regulations and overreach that kill off small business. They want to make it impossible for anyone to start a business.
"Democrats are good with coming up with excessive regulations and overreach that kill off small business."

Because most of them have zero business experience themselves. Never started or ran a small business BUT, they KNOW better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 05:26 AM
 
18,945 posts, read 9,657,318 times
Reputation: 5312
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
There is never any sudden raise. Not a single state has had any sudden raise in any minimum wage. Its always a gradual raise.

Even states where the current minimum wage is a starvation wage, they are affected by the minimum wage raises in the rest of the country. Just like labor unions, minimum wage raises have an effect on the entire national labor market.
Are we your slaves now? Please explain the moral justification for forcing the people at gunpoint to pay for goods and services at a price you dictate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:32 AM
 
18,945 posts, read 9,657,318 times
Reputation: 5312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Democrats are good with coming up with excessive regulations and overreach that kill off small business."

Because most of them have zero business experience themselves. Never started or ran a small business BUT, they KNOW better.
Incorrect. Because Democrats in their core love slavery. They just love to enslave others and dictate how others must live their life. They know better than all of us.

What’s the moral justification for forcing a freeman to pay or accept a certain wage?

There’s none.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:03 AM
 
16,819 posts, read 9,130,160 times
Reputation: 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Housing is still an investment. Its silly to to include housing in cost of living when that all depends on whether you have bought or not. There is a reason why housing is not included in inflation statistics. Its an investment. And living in an area with low housing prices means you also lose a lot of home equity compared to owning in an expensive area.
You have went full AOC.

#1, In high cost of living areas the vast majority of residents can't afford to buy so they rent. In low cost of living areas the vast majority of the residents can afford to buy so they buy.

It is the exact opposite of what you said. It is typically low cost of living areas that has most people building equity in properties.

#2 Everyone has to live somewhere. If you don't know this then I hope your mother has furnished you a nice basement. It is appropriate to count housing for cost of living, because it is a cost of living for most people living in the real world.

It is places like NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco that have "the rent is too d#$* high" movements for a reason, because to everyone not in their mother's basement housing is a significant cost of living.

#3 How do you lose a lot of equity living in a low cost of living area vs a high cost of living area? I repeat in low cost of living areas about 85% own their home and are building equity. In high cost of living areas only about 30% own their own home. That is a MASSIVE difference.

You are nearly three times more likely to own your own home in a low cost of living area. Even if the home is cheaper, you build equity in it as opposed to paying a landlord in a high cost of living area.

You are a simple math denier.


Paying rent is not an investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:13 AM
 
Location: DFW - Coppell / Las Colinas
32,020 posts, read 36,681,542 times
Reputation: 38667
These wages will just be passed on to the low income people who shop at these stores. SNAP $$ will cover fewer groceries, day care costs will go up for the poor... anything made by the worker will be used up by inflation.

The one who benefits the most is the Fed Govt who will collect more SS and FICA taxes.

If Dems were serious they would stop the flood of 3rd world, illiterate, homeless workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:14 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 4,657,792 times
Reputation: 5216
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
You have went full AOC.

#1, In high cost of living areas the vast majority of residents can't afford to buy so they rent. In low cost of living areas the vast majority of the residents can afford to buy so they buy.

It is the exact opposite of what you said. It is typically low cost of living areas that has most people building equity in properties.

#2 Everyone has to live somewhere. If you don't know this then I hope your mother has furnished you a nice basement. It is appropriate to count housing for cost of living, because it is a cost of living for most people living in the real world.

It is places like NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco that have "the rent is too d#$* high" movements for a reason, because to everyone not in their mother's basement housing is a significant cost of living.

#3 How do you lose a lot of equity living in a low cost of living area vs a high cost of living area? I repeat in low cost of living areas about 85% own their home and are building equity. In high cost of living areas only about 30% own their own home. That is a MASSIVE difference.

You are nearly three times more likely to own your own home in a low cost of living area. Even if the home is cheaper, you build equity in it as opposed to paying a landlord in a high cost of living area.

You are a simple math denier.


Paying rent is not an investment.
Cost of living all depends on whether you can afford to buy real estate in a market or not. Its silly to just label a place as a high cost of living area if you can afford to buy real estate lets say within an hour of your place of work. Most people in Chicago dont live downtown. They buy property in the suburbs. Why do you think the inflation figure you see does not include housing? Food is always a cost. A fridge is always a cost. Housing is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:40 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
10,631 posts, read 4,429,198 times
Reputation: 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Yay, instant inflation.
The last time we had massive inflation was in the 1980's. It was created by the cost of oil. Oil and the products made from it, are throughout the economy.

Right now we have inflation in food. Food and grocery manufacturers are putting less in their packages while still charging the same or slightly higher. That's hidden inflation.

Every time you see an isle in the grocery section of any store doing a reset, its to fit the smaller packages.

Marketing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:47 AM
 
18,945 posts, read 9,657,318 times
Reputation: 5312
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
You have went full AOC.

#1, In high cost of living areas the vast majority of residents can't afford to buy so they rent. In low cost of living areas the vast majority of the residents can afford to buy so they buy.

It is the exact opposite of what you said. It is typically low cost of living areas that has most people building equity in properties.

#2 Everyone has to live somewhere. If you don't know this then I hope your mother has furnished you a nice basement. It is appropriate to count housing for cost of living, because it is a cost of living for most people living in the real world.

It is places like NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco that have "the rent is too d#$* high" movements for a reason, because to everyone not in their mother's basement housing is a significant cost of living.

#3 How do you lose a lot of equity living in a low cost of living area vs a high cost of living area? I repeat in low cost of living areas about 85% own their home and are building equity. In high cost of living areas only about 30% own their own home. That is a MASSIVE difference.

You are nearly three times more likely to own your own home in a low cost of living area. Even if the home is cheaper, you build equity in it as opposed to paying a landlord in a high cost of living area.

You are a simple math denier.


Paying rent is not an investment.
We won that argument long time ago.

The fact that they are still arguing with us is because they believe minimum wage is the right thing to do. Having adopted that belief, they are looking for anything to justify their belief. No amount of argument against their justification will change their mind. People knowingly do stupid and evil things all the time, because they feel itís for a good cause.

The only way to do that is to challenge their evil belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:22 AM
 
16,819 posts, read 9,130,160 times
Reputation: 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Cost of living all depends on whether you can afford to buy real estate in a market or not. Its silly to just label a place as a high cost of living area if you can afford to buy real estate lets say within an hour of your place of work. Most people in Chicago dont live downtown. They buy property in the suburbs. Why do you think the inflation figure you see does not include housing? Food is always a cost. A fridge is always a cost. Housing is not.
Housing is a cost.

True or False, if you don't pay your mortgage or property taxes you can potentially lose your home?

True or False, if you rent like 69% of NYC households and comparable numbers in Chicago, San Francisco, etc you are not building any equity in your home, which is a cost?

True or False, a primary reason to move to the suburbs and commute is the lower cost of a home, because the comparatively more expensive city priced you out of good options?

People don't move to the suburbs, because they love an hour drive and an hour drive back (your time frame given) in heavy traffic to work adding more wear and tear on your car and gas costs. But rather it is a lower cost of living in the suburbs in spite of the commute for a comparative accommodation and lifestyle. Thank you for proving my point unwittingly.

They often don't include housing in inflation numbers because it's sharp rise and falls can distort day to day living inflation. If you buy a 30 year mortgage home, which is far more common in low cost of living areas, then you are locked in and inflation for you doesn't need to measure home costs.

Last edited by michiganmoon; Today at 07:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:46 AM
 
52,021 posts, read 41,851,918 times
Reputation: 32458
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats approved legislation Thursday to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, to $15 an hour, showcasing the progress and challenge of a signature issue for the party ahead of the 2020 election.

The increase, which would boost pay for some 30 million low-wage workers, is intended as one answer to income inequality. A longshot project of liberal advocates just a few years ago, the $15 minimum is standard practice at some leading U.S. corporations. But passage was assured only after centrist Democrats, reluctant to embrace the party's left flank, won adjustments, including a slower six-year phase-in of the wage. It was just the latest reminder of the sway moderates hold over the party's policy decisions.

Even though the bill's chances in the Republican-controlled Senate are slim, and President Donald Trump is unlikely to sign it into law, the outcome is important because it puts $15 into the campaigns as the new benchmark for debate.

https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/h...mum-wage-to-15


Be interesting to see how this one plays out for companies like Walmart, etc. I’m sure they will be backing Trump.
Then again Trump might be for it I’d be surprised if he wasn’t after all if he did run on the idea of helping the American workers make more money.
The companies will do what Target did as they increased their minimum pay.

They got rid of the more marginal workers and put more work on the others.

Others will expand automation.

In short, hundreds of thousands of workers are going to lose their jobs but the better ones will get a pay increase and this is the non-partisan finding of the CBO.

So yeah, this isn't going to be all rainbows and unicorns for everybody.

Secondly, it's a stupid idea because it has no cost of living provision.
(However I think that's part of the plan because the lower cost areas are generally republican so they basically build in opposition and this bill is not intended to pass but rather create a wedge issue.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top