368
369

Bernie's Unemployment Contradiction (i.imgur.com)

GaroldWilsonSnailJr が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 231
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 134ポイント135ポイント  (99子コメント)

I've identified the problem: Socialists don't understand economics.

[–]Iamninja28 48ポイント49ポイント  (95子コメント)

Corrected: Anyone who uses Denmark as an example for an ideal economy doesnt understand economics.

[–]geckogod5 16ポイント17ポイント  (93子コメント)

I'm not familiar with Denmark. Why do liberals keep bringing it up? Edit: Did some googling

According to the Cia World Factbook

1. Demark

  • GDP per capita = $44,300 (2014)
  • Gini Coefficient (Income Inequality, lower is more equal) = 24.8 (2011 latest data)
  • Debt as a percentage of its gdp = 44.3%

2. The United States

  • GDP per capita = 54,600 (2014)
  • Gini Coefficient (Income Inequality, lower is more equal) = 45 (2011 latest data)
  • Debt as a percentage of its gdp = 71.2%

Their numbers look pretty good. Why, specifically can't we do in America what they did to get these numbers? I understand that politically we don't like raising taxes, but why economically can't we do what they do?

[–]nicksvr4 26ポイント27ポイント  (19子コメント)

In Denmark, everyone pays minimum of 23.5% income tax+ 25% VAT + 8% payroll. In the US, the minimums are negative for tax (Earned Income Tax Credit), between 0-15.3% payroll, and 0-11.725% sales tax.

So if you started with 30,000:

Denmark 30,000 - (23.5 + 8%) = 20,550 - 25% VAT = 15,412.50

US 30,000 - (0 + 15.3%) = $25,410 - 11.725% = 22,430.68

Plus in the US, our purchasing parity is higher than most countries. Denmark shows 28% more expensive when looking at the OECD comparative price levels

While Denmark only has a 1.8% higher median income

In short, the poor pay a lot more taxes than the US poor, while business and the "rich" pay a lot more. (My numbers for the US taxation were generous with the sales/payroll taxes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

Btw, who cares if income inequality is high? What should matter is the Purchasing Parity, median income, etc. If things are good for the median, and we have a high income inequality, it just means we have more rich people.

We can have no income inequality and all be poor. Is that better?

[–]geckogod5 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

Purchasing Power Parity adjusted GDP per capita is indeed $10,000 higher in the United States than Denmark.

The question is, given our greater overall wealth, why does Denmark rank above the United States in every single quality of life index I can find? These indexes include things like health, education, standard of living, etc.

Examples:

OECD Better LIfe Index

Where to be Born Index

[–]nicksvr4 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know, but we spend more on education, healthcare, etc. So the problem is likely much deeper than throwing more money at it.

[–]lo_there 11ポイント12ポイント  (15子コメント)

You're comparing a country of over 300 million people made up of different cultures around the world to a country of just over 5 million people that is largely homogenous. Why would you think any comparison would even be remotely relevant?

[–]Lokitusaborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You hit the nail on the head. US poor are some of the least poor in all the world. Why isn't this argued better?

[–]Mashedtaders 32ポイント33ポイント  (9子コメント)

All the Scandanvian countries have large deposits of North Sea oil relative to the size of their country that they use to fund their social + economic programs. For example, Norway's soverign wealth fund is one of the largest in the world, approaching ~1 Trillion USD, with a fraction of the population of the US.

[–]nowakattack 23ポイント24ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not to mention that the USA pays for the military protection of all of the Scandinavian countries. They all have token armies but the real force in that area is the mighty USA. If they had to pay for their own protection then you could kiss all those social programs goodbye.

[–]spammishking 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Here's their expenditure by capita They may be small countries, but they spend more than most countries. If anything your argument is that the US overspends for its military, rather than the Scandinavian countries under spend. 

 1 United States 2009 2,140
 6 Norway 2009 1,245
 14 Denmark 2009 804
 15 Netherlands 2009 759
 16 Finland 2009 702
 17 Sweden 2009 657

 By GDP
 US: 3.5%
 Norway: 1.4%
 Denmark: 1.3%
 Netherlands: 1.2%
 Finland: 1.3%
 Sweden: 1.2%

[–]Disingenuous_ 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

NATO countries are required to spend 2% of GDP on defense. So yes, they underspend.

[–]Roez -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

They only have six million people. The per capita seems like it's a bit misleading. I'm pretty sure what they spend they would have a very hard time going it alone, and they do pass that burden along elsewhere. They most certainly benefit from treaties and outside protection.

Per capita sounds interesting as a way of equalizing differing populations, but it over looks infrastructure, monetary sources and other problems, where you can't simply draw a direct comparison. It's can be pretty misleading.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Anyway, it's interesting and I always appreciate factually informed posts.

edit: PS, pretend you're not on /r/politics and actually say why you disagree instead of spontaneously downvoting. This is one of the few subs that, while it has its moments, does from time to time lend itself to actual discussion and differing views.

[–]Lokitusaborg -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Upvoted you because some tool decides to one through and downvote your rationality.

[–]FreelanceTradeCraft 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Denmark doesn't have a lot of oil really.

[–]Mashedtaders 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That is true, I think they have the least of any country (someone please correct me if i'm wrong). People just like to lump all of those countries together so I just wanted to make a general point that gets lost when we talk about the "Scandanavian model".

[–]IamtherealZyzz 25ポイント26ポイント  (7子コメント)

Because they see free healthcare and think they are socialist. Denmark is more economically 'free' in comparison to the U.S and is very pro-business.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[–]yep45Constitutionalist 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

If it's an industry controlled by the government, it is socialism. That's what socialism is

[–]KadenTau -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

If it's an industry controlled by the government the people, it is socialism. That's what socialism is

I know you're posting on /r/Conservative but please get your shit straight before posting.

[–]Lokitusaborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Slight point of order: Socialism requires a heavy handed government who makes decisions to shift resources from the "elite class" to "the people." So he's right. Socialism doesn't work without a gun to the head. He may have better worded it "socialism is when industry is controlled by a Strong central Government for the good of the people."

[–]KadenTau -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

No he's not, and neither are you. Socialism is not a heavy handed government. By definition it can't be socialism if the government is going around metaphorically putting guns to people's heads. That's authoritarianism, a mode of government which flies directly in the face of socialist ideals and practices.

From the wiki:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[4][5] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[6] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[7]

Most people think of the nationalization part, but there's other, and much better ways than going full ruskie. The word government doesn't even appear in that paragraph.

[–]ColossalPedals 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think you answered your own question there, because you're not familiar with Denmark

[–]geckogod5 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Right, but that's why I'm asking you guys to explain what specifically I'm missing...Why can't we in America have wealth equality numbers like Denmark?

[–]KadenTau 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably because they're not familiar with either.

[–]HarryPeckerCrabbe 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Scandinavian was staunchly free market up through the late 1960's, before which those societies generated a great deal of wealth and lifted standards of living relative to the world. The (unfortunate) move towards socialism in the late 1960's has actually had to be scaled back in most Scandinavian countries because of the stagnation it has caused.

As a quick reference, compare the number of well known, large Scandinavian companies (i.e., employers, wealth creators) that were started and grew before the 1960's v. since the advent of Socialism there. Very few new successes have been recorded since the arrival of socialism. The fool Sanders somehow fails to mention that fact.

[–]LAteNutz 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think most people have an understanding of the economic spectrum. At one side there is communism (or whatever you want to call it) and on the other is capitalism (again, call it what you want). Advancement too far to either side produces unintended consequences. Too much socialism and we get economic stagnation, low standards of living, cultural resentments, and dictators. Too much capitalism and we get economic stagnation, low standards of living, cultural resentments, and dictators. Too much of any one political system will bear the same outcomes they just show their ugly heads in different ways.

When I look at the attitude of the US political electorate I don't see right and wrong, or stupid and smart. I see it as a trailing indicator of societal necessity. I don't vote for a specific party every election. I ask myself, "Are we currently too liberal? Are we currently too conservative?" I use my knowledge and my vote as a tool to affect the world around me.

If you think any one system is a god-send your just as ignorant as the other guy.

[–]HarryPeckerCrabbe 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at a photo of Hong Kong on the late 1950's and compare it to a photo today. Do the same with Havanna Cuba. Remember that Hong Kong was devastated after the Japanese occupation in WWII and was flooded with refugees after the Communist takeover in China.

Free markets work. God Bless Sir John Cowperthwaite.

[–]Iamninja28 5ポイント6ポイント  (28子コメント)

You need to understand that socialism works in small and easily controlled countries. America is far too big for a system such as Socialism to even have a chance.

And even if Socialism could work in a country this big, Sanders is taking the wrong approach to it entirely. His economic plan will kill most small businesses and as a result triple the unemployment he claims he can reduce.

[–]geckogod5 2ポイント3ポイント  (27子コメント)

This is what I need help understanding. How specifically does socialism require a small country to work?

I'm not for raising taxes, because frankly I don't want to pay more taxes, but isn't socialism just raising taxes and then distributing it to the lower classes through social security-like programs? Why wouldn't this work in a larger country?

[–]theevilelmo 8ポイント9ポイント  (10子コメント)

Its because of homogenization and culture. Somewhere like Denmark has almost no ethnic or religious diversity, and is so small that you don't even need to own a car. The Scandinavian countries also have the benefit of not being in a war since the 1800s, being the supplier in world war 2, and being untouched while in the 19th century, the rest of Europe was in shambles from the wars. Their countries are also much healthier. The cost of a single layer healthcare system in America would be much lower if we didn't have such an obesity and drug problem. Think about how a small town doesn't need a government, but a city of 18 million people of all different shapes and sizes from all different backgrounds might not exactly all have the same goals in mind.

[–]geckogod5 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

But what does culture have to do with economics? I can see our diverse culture making things politically more difficult, but what economic reasons are there that we couldn't implement socialism?

I don't think you can argue past wars are an issue. We're not comparing Denmark to Europe, we're comparing Denmark to the U.S., and we have current economic data. The U.S. is $10,000 wealthier per capita than Denmark.

I agree that our obese population will cost more to cover in healthcare, but what does that have to do with lowering inequality through socialist tax policies?

[–]theevilelmo 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

I should have been more clear, my apologies. A socialist economy that Bernie Sanders is proposing, is anti capitalist. It is a society based upon labor, rather than business. The united States is not densely populated, save a few major cities. Any far left wing economic and political ideology has the concept of shared wealth, and the working class owning the means of production and the business. I dont think that the entire city of Los Angeles where I am located, would be too keen on manual labor. I am poor, and a until a few months ago, I was working at a factory, of which I was one of 2 or 3 white men out of over a 1000 where the rest was Hispanic immigrants, or second generation. The American culture is not willing to work like that.

Secondly, yes it makes complete and total sense to compare the Scandinavian countries to the US while mentioning the rest of Europe as a footnote as an explanation. Most of Europe is socialist, or has a government very close to it. Scandinavian countries are slowly imploding, which is why their richer are getting poorer, and their poorer are getting poorer, and their gdp is rapidly losing value. One of the main reasons, if not the main reason it hasn't came sooner, is because they enjoyed the prosperity of not losing their male population and having to rebuild their entire countries. So yes, it makes sense to me to compare them mentioning the wars.

And as far as the obesity thing goes, I find it rather unfair that the healthy population(me) has to pay significantly more of my hard earned money because a great lot of people don't take care of themselves. Obese people would effectively become a "welfare queen" if you will. I agree that the tax cuts for the rich are ridiculous, and they make me beyond angry. However, taxing them at 90% like Bernie Sanders is proposing is preposterous, and does nothing but diminish the total wealth in the country. I dream of a day where we enjoy the same economic freedom as this country did 60 years ago, and a country based on debt, like both parties have done since the late 70s, is just a disaster. I'm not going to put in a plug here, but the only US presidential candidate who thinks that it's unacceptable for a country to go into debt is Rand Paul, who is coincidentally the only one who thinks that everyone should be taxed an equal flat rate as well.

[–]SubparNova -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

However, taxing them at 90% like Bernie Sanders is proposing is preposterous, and does nothing but diminish the total wealth in the country. I dream of a day where we enjoy the same economic freedom as this country did 60 years ago

You realize 60 years ago the top tax rate was a preposterous 91% right?

[–]DurtMacGurt 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Carson too

[–]theevilelmo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like carson's policies, but he's a little soft spoken in debates, and I think his religious convictions will scare off enough potential voters from the left wing and the independents.

[–]dan1776Libertarian Conservative -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Both Denmark and Norway were occupied by Germany in WW2.

[–]theevilelmo 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm aware. A little less than 10,000 people also lost their lives as a direct result of it. That being said, there was never any conflict in a major city, destruction to any industry, or significant loss of life like any other countries in Europe. Hence, practically untouched.

[–]Loveflu 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

The most glaringly obvious reason is that hand-outs breed apathy and laziness.

That destroys economies.

[–]geckogod5 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

But if that's the case, why aren't the economies of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc, falling apart?

That seems like an obvious expected outcome, but it hasn't materialized.

Moreover, is it really a handout to give people who work full work weeks enough money to live a decent life, even if supply and demand says that their jobs aren't worth a decent living?

[–]Loveflu 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

There is a plethora of of reasons, one of which someone spoke about above. They are rich from oil.

Besides that, they built their socialist society with a homogeneous culture. Their socialism did not breed from throwing money at "victimized" minorities.

[–]geckogod5 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think anyone wants to redistribute wealth based on ethnic, cultural, or religious minorities. I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong), that the whole Sanders movement is about class warfare rather than ethnic.

You say they are "rich from oil," but our GDP per capita is $10,000 more than Denmark's. I don't think the source of the wealth matters, the fact is we have wealth. Unless there's something about oil wealth that I'm missing?

The question is why can't socialist policies be used in larger countries like the United States to more fairly redistribute that wealth.

[–]Loveflu 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't think the source of the wealth matters, the fact is we have wealth

It absolutely does.

America's wealth is built on producing and creating things.

Pulling oil from the ground and the government pocketing the money isn't producing or creating anything.

Wealth distribution destroys the human spirit. Producing, creating and achieving are killed when you throw money at someone on the dole.

Just go to your local neighborhood ghetto.

You'll know you are on in welfare territory based on the trash littered streets, drug corners and people walking around during work hours.

You want more of that?

[–]Lokitusaborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh god, yes they do. Why else all the rhetoric about "CEO's" and "Corporations." There is absolutely a movement to redistribute wealth according to "need."

[–]fatbabythompkins 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm completely talking out of my ass, but it has something to do with overhead scalability and homogeneous locations.

Overhead scalability is simply as the population grows, the overhead to keep people in line grows at a non-linear rate. It is simpler to keep corruption to a minimum with 3 people than with 9 people. (If you've studied graph theory this is a n*(n-1)/2 problem). The amount of connections with 3 people is 2 3 while the number of connections with 9 people is potentially as high as 36.

As for homogeneous population, generally most people have the same ideals and want the same thing. There's little bigotry in the forms of racism, religious intolerance (or lack of religion), sexuality, and gender (to a degree). Less variables, easier to manage. As everyone generally agrees on the same thing few feel slighted if X gets service Y or doesn't get service Z.

Now take the U.S. and we have considerably more people with many different cultures. So many people would be offended if X group got Y service and didn't get Z service. Trying to balance that equation would be terrifying and a lose lose politically because you pissed someone off to make others happy.

Edit: Didn't even use my own formula on the simple problem...

[–]geckogod5 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But, isn't this just talking about the political difficulty of passing a law? I grant you that getting any law passed in a country as heterogeneous as the U.S. seems to be very hard, but that's not my question. And your argument would hold against any kind of political/economic policy, and yet the United States does still get stuff done. How is it an argument against the feasibility of socialism?

Moreover, my question really is why economically wouldn't socialism work in larger countries.

[–]fatbabythompkins -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not at all. I only threw in that last statement as it could apply to any, really.

As for the overhead problem, with socialism the corruption must be seen and stopped by the social entity. It is 100% on them, which in itself can be seen as a absolute power entity. In capitalism, the burden is shared between the social body and the people. This is generally done through competition and regulation whereas in socialism it is strictly regulation.

As for the homogeneous issue, it is mostly a political issue, but there is an economic side as well. If everyone can't agree on something their is a compromise, which by economic theory says we are not running at equilibrium. With any political system, even the most homogeneous bodies will not be able to fully agree on everything so some compromise must occur. Thus the more homogeneous the population the less compromise and the closer to equilibrium you have. I cannot tell you the rate at which it becomes beneficial to ditch socialism with the amount of compromise, but I can say that the amount of discord amongst the differing amount of people in the U.S. would put the social system in likely a very inefficient state. The other option is to have everyone tough it out and run at equilibrium, but what equilibrium is would not be known and would piss people off in the process.

[–]Roez 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Communication, control, individual participation. Even in the US when you get down to large cities versus the Federal Government people feel they have more say and direct involvement within their political system. The more local the political unit is, the more involved people generally feel they can be. Individual activism is more direct so to speak, leaders are often people who others within their community know of and can relate to.

The larger the unit gets the harder it is to find conciliation. There are regional cultural issues, different economic issues, production issues, organization issues, you name it.

Socialism depends on workers sharing their time, and time not value is what is important (though I am certain there are more varied and specific definitions for different versions). Still, we know that no organized economic or political system can function without someone in control directing and enforcing policies, directing prioritization, making choices, and so on. There will be corruption issues, fairness issues, cultural issues, etc, and the larger the society gets the harder it is to get people to ascribe to it, feel involved and motivated. We can't dismiss what we know about human behavior, including laziness, freeloaders and so on, even if we have a perfectly indoctrinated society, which doesn't exist anyway.

Personally, there are other issues where socialism is bound to failure. I'm not sure I would bank on just this one, but I can understand it having some merit and it's part of the larger issue.

[–]Iamninja28 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because smaller countries with smaller populations are more easily managed when you have universal healthcare, extremely high taxes, low but equal overall income, and everyone gets to expect the same thing. Sweden is very similar in the healthcare sense, but as a result suicide risk is surprisingly high in these areas because the atmosphere is constant, it gets boring and predictable, and according to a good friend of mine who is a Swede, it's a very depressing system. Which is why they are slowly trying to make themselves more capitalist while retaining a socialist healthcare system.

[–]Lokitusaborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also they have some of the strictest immigration laws in the developed world as well as one of the least culturally diverse population.

[–]neither_party -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

What a diverse country of 330,000,000 people can do (US) and a highly homogeneous country (90% Danish) with the population of SC can do are often very different things just because of scale.

[–]VirginWizard69 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Corrected: any liberal doesn't understand economics.

[–]Cybrosis 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you pay people enough to feed them, they might spend that spare cash buying YOUR PRODUCT. God do you business owners Know fucking anything except 2 bit political slogans and economic dribble, "you don't understand, we need all the regulations gone at the top so we can use the trickle down economy to escape all responsibility."

I live in Australia, where we pay $25 an hour. The average toilet clearer working on the mines earns nearly $90,000. If you think you can't afford to pay your youth workers more, then be prepared to rely on the aged, the struggling & the poor to keep your business afloat. GOOD LUCK.

[–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 46ポイント47ポイント  (77子コメント)

I have found that Liberals are incapable of understanding how minimum wage laws harm young and minorities the most and prevent them from gaining the economic opportunities to advance themselves from over a decade of explaining this to them ad nauseum. Either this, or that is in fact the goal of pushing minimum wage laws: to price out young and minorities from the job market to ensure a perpetual crop of government dependents.

[–]Mister_Johnson3 35ポイント36ポイント  (13子コメント)

And for all their hated of big corporations, it's the small businesses which are hurt the most by liberal policies.

[–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 13ポイント14ポイント  (10子コメント)

That and the underclasses in general.

I really wish liberals would take a step back and logically and rationally look over what their policies have accomplished (or destroyed) over the last several decades and re-evaluate whether or not they really need to change direction. If they do not do this, I can only infer one of several reasons:

  1. They are willfully ignorant and unwilling to learn from their mistakes

  2. They are willfully malignant and seek purposely to do the underclasses harm for their own political benefit

  3. They are unwilling to admit their policies are damaging and will do anything they can to perpetuate them hoping for small victories here and there they can hold up as examples of success amid the vastly more numerous examples of failure

[–]xdeeman 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll take response #2 for $500 Alex.

[–]2BlackPeople 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not that their policies have failed, it's that they haven't been truly implemented enough! /s

[–]ayelold 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you looked at Kansas since Brownback was elected? The exact same argument could be made against conservatives. He's gotten his way ever step of the way but the new state deficit is just proof we need to double down on his policies. Moar cuts to the rich because trickle down!

[–]LugganathFTW 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Businesses with less than $500k/yr revenue that don't do interstate business are exempt from federal minimum wage, so there is some small business protection. Maybe you can argue that it's not encompassing enough, but it does exist.

And this Forbes article shows that Wal-Mart employees cost taxpayers $6.2 billion in welfare. This is a problem. If you don't think raising the minimum wage is the solution, I'd love to hear more ideas.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]jgardnerReagan Conservative 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Indeed, the first minimum wage laws were written with the intention of keeping blacks out of the labor force. That had the effect of putting them on the vote plantation, and now they are some of the democratic party's most loyal voters. If I were the democrats, I'd push everyone else on to that plantation to ensure election for life.

    [–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

    They are honestly pretty smart when it comes to rigging the game (or the Republicans aren't devious enough to do the same sort of thing). For example, all of these sanctuary cities and states you hear about lately, well during the next census, those illegals will be counted on the census for the purposes of determining where the congressional districts are allotted, regardless of them not being legally citizens or eligible to vote. And since the number of seats in the house hasn't changed in decades, this means inevitably there will be a permanent Democratic majority in the House after a few decades of this practice.

    [–]enmass90 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    A republican talking about rigging districts? HOLY SHIT! Gerrymandering anyone?

    [–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Chicago districts anyone? Both parties pull that crap, so don't try to act like the Dems are saints on that account.

    [–]LawlosaurusNeoconservative -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    or the Republicans aren't devious enough to do the same sort of thing

    I like to think it's that.

    [–]BitchStewie_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Can you cite a source for that?

    [–]motorsizzle 3ポイント4ポイント  (50子コメント)

    While your logic makes sense, what is the alternative solution to fight concentration of wealth?

    [–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Encourage more small businesses and entrepreneurs to start their own businesses. Even something as simple as braiding hair or cleaning houses is better than nothing. But too often there are high barriers to entry to some of these fields requiring licenses, bonds, insurance, etc. And while I understand all of that is to protect the consumer, it also reduces the competition bigger businesses would face.

    Basically, enforce tort laws and allow people to file suit very easily for fraud, negligence, or other similar situations. Then small businesses and self employed entrepreneurs would understand that if they screw someone over, they need to make it right, and hopefully they will act accordingly. And if they are out their to defraud people, then the criminal justice system steps in to drop some heavy penalties on them or even jail time depending on the nature of the fraud.

    Also, allow employers to pay whatever wage the employee would agree to. I said on this sub last week that if I were a small employer, I would be willing to give a young black kid with no experience or HS degree a job and a chance to prove himself if I didn't have to pay him way more than I feel an employee with that lack of qualifications is worth. If I have to pay $15/hr, I'm going to hire someone with experience and higher qualifications. But again, if I could hire him for say $5/hr for a few months to try him out, and if he sticks around and proves his worth, I'd be happy to bump up his pay more and more periodically. Maybe $5/hr more after six months, and another $5/hr after a year, kinda deal.

    EDIT: Downvotes liberals? Stay classy! I suppose $0/hr is better than $5/hr in your world view, so long as that person is a willing participant in their ongoing generational poverty, right?

    [–]KlumsySmurf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    $5 an hour isn't even close to what someone needs to survive on, so what you're proposing is to let the government increase it's corporate welfare program to support business who don't want to pay their employees a living wage. Fine, we already do that, nothing changes there.

    There's also the huge issue of the imbalance of power between employers and employees at low level jobs. The fact is that most business will actively avoid giving out raises, as they do today. Fire and rehire at the minimum they can pay is a common practice and this would certainly encourage that behavior even more.

    If we had universal single payer healthcare, better government assistance programs and easier access to higher education, then no, $5 an hour still wouldn't work but at least someone might be able to work themselves up from that position.

    I can understand the argument against $15/hr wages, but realize that our minimum wage should be close to $11 if it kept pace with inflation. Would you be against that?

    Either way, it's a complicated issue with no easy fix, but I strongly believe that no minimum wage would be a disaster. History has shown us that we can't trust corporations to treat their workers well, that's just not how it works.

    I'm considering downvoting you just for your "downvotes liberals?" classy comment, as it shows you also have a lot of class /s. (I didn't downvote, your post was thought provoking even if a little naïve.)

    [–]ImpoverishedYorick 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    But what if people in a community are too desperate for an income and constantly undercut each other? Eventually you end up with a bunch of people who are employed, yes, but they're working all of their hours for less than they can really live on. And they can't argue for more because the "standard" rates are so low, due to high demand. This would lead into entire communities falling into decay, wouldn't it?

    Plus, if you're a large, out-of-touch company and there are no rules stating that you can't pay somebody $5/hr indefinitely, isn't it more competitive in the long run to do so? A lot of low/minimum wage jobs have a very high turnover rate, even when the employees are paid above the minimum. And every time that employer tries to pay their employees a little more to retain them, it makes them less competitive than the company across town that still pays its employees the bare-minimum. What would you say is the best solution to this problem?

    [–]motorsizzle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thank you for a well reasoned response.

    [–]JustAFlicker 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Downvotes liberals?

    You're at 20 points. Most posts in this thread have less than that.

    [–]Stagmatic -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Your comment is 3 hours older than his

    [–]JustAFlicker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I know. The propensity for numbers to change over time is why I dislike edits like his (in that it's about his comment) and went from wanting to upvote to not vote on it at all.

    I also get really frustrated when I feel I'm being downvoted because people don't like what I'm saying when I think I'm being reasonable, so I do understand the impulse.

    [–]chabanaisStronger than derp. 7ポイント8ポイント  (14子コメント)

    Do you believe there is a finite amount of "wealth" in the world?

    [–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    In a way, yes. Wealth represents what we value or what we are willing to exchange for what we value, and since there are only so many things on the earth which we could "buy", then wealth is finite in that sense.

    But that said, the potential to create more wealth is nigh infinite. Even if we used up all of the physical resources on our planet (highly unlikely, mother nature would send a massive epidemic or famine our way well beforehand to thin the population), there are still many potential non-physical resources which could be exchange on a purely barter system.

    For example, I could offer my services to clean your house in exchange for you doing my taxes or vice versa.

    Though without physical resources (food, water, warm clothing, warm shelter) none of us would live very long anyway. So basically when we reach the point where we are no longer able to produce enough of those essentials for our total global population, then wealth will have reached its finite conclusion.

    [–]Hubb1eFiscal Conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Wealth today is not solely created based on natural resources. Labor is a resource too and we're getting more and more productive at that which is creating massive amounts of wealth as countries like Russia and China develop from rural economies to high tech. The really really rich (in this country at least) have generally not gained their wealth through natural resources so that is new wealth that we've created. With globalization those few people are able to change a LOT of lives which is why wealth is concentrated in them so if you hate on wealth so much don't go for the symptom which is the wealthy, attack the source which is globalization. Attacking globalization would be futile so just go away...

    [–]LugganathFTW 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    "So just roll over and die" is your final point? Jesus man.

    [–]unalienable1776 11ポイント12ポイント  (20子コメント)

    A minimum wage just concentrates it further so eliminating the minimum wage would in effect, "spread the wealth". More jobs, more workers, more money for workers.

    A side note, why is a concentration of wealth inherently a bad thing? You make it sound like there is only a limited supply of wealth.

    [–]motorsizzle 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

    Sincere question here - explain to me how minimum wage concentrates wealth while no minimum wage spreads it around. I'm not following your thought process.

    [–]Hubb1eFiscal Conservative 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Workers who are not working are not creating wealth so that concentrates it in the working people. Minimum wage creates unemployment at the low end so you're keeping them poor by keeping them out of the workforce. People who can't find work end up on welfare which means they don't want to take low paying jobs. This all leads to the low end of the workforce staying on welfare as long as they can and also keeps them from learning new skills by working. That's not what you think of as concentrating wealth since you've been taught that only the top 1% should be hated, but wealth is relative. Even a welfare recipient in the US would be considered wealthy by North Korean or other rural 3rd world countries.

    [–]motorsizzle 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Fair point, but we're discussing wealth inequality within this country so a comparison to a third world country isn't really relevant.

    Yes, I'm referring to the 1% - the average american living paycheck to paycheck is not what I would consider wealthy.

    [–]unalienable1776 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (15子コメント)

    That''s because you think like a liberal and don't understand how wealth and jobs are created. So, follow me here, I know it will seem counter intuitive but think about it.

    When you implement a minimum wage, you make it more expensive to hire people thus less workers get hired and less workers get paid (a few get a raise which is concentrated). If there was no minimum wage it would be cheap to hire people and there would be more workers with jobs making money (less concentrated).

    I assume this isn't you're idea of "concentrated" that you're referring to. You probably mean business owners have the money while the laborers do not. You have to answer why that is inherently a bad thing?

    [–]Sudonom 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That only works if employees are able to quit if an employer is screwing them, and thus make paying a decent wage competitive. Which means there needs to be a safety net, or a bunch of employers who are hiring. Abolishing a minimum wage isn't going to magically fix that, business are still going to only hire the fewest people they need.

    [–]KadenTau 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That''s because you think like a liberal and don't understand how wealth and jobs are created. So, follow me here, I know it will seem counter intuitive but think about it.

    eyeroll Yeah sure start off with the snark. "Listen up scrub." he says.

    And then you follow it with this ignorant tripe:

    When you implement a minimum wage, you make it more expensive to hire people thus less workers get hired and less workers get paid

    Like in India. And Mexico. You know...where all these fucking immigrants come from. And where they ship our jobs to. For pennies on the dollar.

    Yoooouuu idiot.

    And then THIS:

    If there was no minimum wage it would be cheap to hire people and there would be more workers with jobs making money

    No it fucking wouldn't. Training costs are high by default. I've been off and on working at Publix here in the south over the past ten years and every time I've gone there they mention the training costs (They're in the thousands. Per new hire.), to remind the hires that they're an investment and that they should take the company seriously, because they're taking you seriously.

    The minimum wage would not change the cost of training, but the cost of upkeep. Depending on your business, micro increases in the cost of certain (or even ALL) products would make up for this no problem.

    And before you ask, they don't do that already because it's not necessary. Why bump prices when your bookkeeping is nice and predictable and manageable?

    [–]romeo123456 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

    What about increasing the minimum wage on businesses that can afford it, like Walmart or McDonalds? If they pay higher wages perhaps the workers could get off food stamps/government assistance programs. And then McDonalds in turn could have reduced taxes. The net gain is we save money on administration of government services? Wouldn't something like that work?
    Edit: I think raising the minimum wage to about $12 would be a good thing. Maybe having a little difference between states. Also maybe having people under 18 being payed a little less but not a lot less. $10? But then again I'm not an economist and a majority believe that it wouldn't work very well. 70% want an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.

    [–]well_here_I_amReagan Conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    The problem is who decides how that works? Politicians? We already have the IRS targeting political enemies, so you could imagine that if liberals are in power they would raise the minimum wage at businesses that don't support them, like Hobby Lobby, or businesses that are predominantly shopped at by right-leaning people (sporting goods stores). The best solution is to let individual states make the minimum wage laws they want so that the liberal states can have it their way and the conservative states can have it their way.

    [–]romeo123456 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I could see abuse happening. But what if you write the laws by the numbers a business has. Like for example if they make 4 billion pure profit at the end of the year, then wages raises but x much. You know something like. I don't see abuse happening that way imo. I'm sure a bi-partisan way could be possible.

    [–]well_here_I_amReagan Conservative -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Like for example if they make 4 billion pure profit at the end of the year, then wages raises but x much.

    But the businesses that make 3.5 billion don't have to? It's just not fair to have cliffs like that.

    [–]romeo123456 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It was just an example. Like a sliding scale could work.

    [–]unalienable1776 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I see the argument there as we all want to get people off welfare and have good jobs that they can support themselves. The problem is many don't want to be off it. We can debate the percentage but at the end of the day there is an incentive in place that pays people to not work. That is a problem. Another thing is why punish the most productive business that can "afford" it? You want to punish them because they are smart and have a superior business plan? Don't blame walmart for taking advantage of a stupid welfare system.

    [–]romeo123456 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If they have their wages raised then they have no choice of staying on it. I'm not following you. They are still being hourly. They are being punished in a way, I agree. However higher raises= better workers. But like said they would also have reduced taxes so it's not a total punishment you know.

    [–]RichterNYR35 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    No, I don't think it would. Mostly because if you force a McD's or Walmart to pay more, those stores will have to raise their prices to pay for the labor. Then business goes down because goods become cheaper somewhere else so that's where the customers go. Althea they have to start firing people. It's a very delicate balance.

    [–]romeo123456 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I specifically stated those because of the large amount of pure profit they make. They could raise wages and still make billions extra. And plus I talked about reduced taxes for those corps. I don't want to sound like an ass but I kinda addressed the exact points you made.

    [–]chakrakhan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If more people get hired at a lower wage, how does that change the concentration of wealth? Are we to expect employers to spend more money on cheaper labor than expensive labor?

    Like you, I'm against raising the minimum wage and agree that it negatively impacts employment and is bad for both businesses and the poor. I don't think that wealth/income inequality is inherently bad. But I'm not seeing how eliminating the minimum wage would mean a change in the concentration of wealth on the aggregate.

    [–]HarryPeckerCrabbe 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Big business loves big government. Want to concentrate wealth? A big administrative state does it - one in which only big corporations that can hire lawyers, lobbyists, accountants, etc. can navigate all the regulations. Also, Contrast what has occurred over the past several decades in the tech field v. healthcare / energy (although large tech firm have benefited from lobbying around visa levels, that have undercut wages for American citizens studying STEM fields).

    Welcome to Obama's AmeriKa.

    [–]conativejjConservative Libertarian 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Too true, and interestingly enough, supposedly Bernie mentioned last night how Dodd-Frank (which he supported) resulted in big banks getting even bigger. Anyone with a passing familiarity of how regulations only benefit large corporations could see that result from a mile away.

    So Bernie gets that much at least, but THEN where he goes off the rails is he somehow expects even more government regulations to fix the problem when onerous government regulations created the problems in the first place (both the events that led to the 2008 housing bubble and the subsequent Dodd-Frank regulations that shut down many smaller banks across our nation to the benefit of the largest national banks).

    [–]HarryPeckerCrabbe 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I am an entrepreneur, so I see all this firsthand.

    Bernie Sanders is a fool who never had to work hard in the private sector. Frankly, the same applies to Clinton.

    [–]Hubb1eFiscal Conservative 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    My favorite example of big business getting breaks small business doesn't get is the Tesla gigafactory in Nevada. The tax breaks on that thing are ginormous but if you're a small company you have no way to access that favoritism. That's how liberals operate and nobody complains because Tesla is the left's favorite company.

    [–]bryanlharris 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Liberals are incapable of understanding how minimum wage laws harm young and minorities

    They know exactly what they're doing. I think of them like the car wash woman in Cool Hand Luke.

    [–]RUoffended -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I'm no economy expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I understand the minimum wage hike:

    Isn't it just accelerated inflation? If you jack up the minimum wage from $8 to $15 then aren't you basically just making $8 worth $15, therefore reducing the value of the dollar? That's at least how I intuitively understand it.

    [–]celtain 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Every extra dollar that a minimum-wage worker earns and spends is a dollar that their employer (or their employer's customers) loses and no longer gets to spend. The total amount of spending stays the same, so there's no overall inflation.

    There are a few caveats, since economics is never that simple, but generally minimum wage hikes don't cause inflation.

    [–]RUoffended -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Well, I can see that you could adjust them for inflation slightly, but practically doubling it seems destructive. There's got to be loads of people in the country working for minimum wage. When they all just magically have double the spending power then it seems like that would just result in higher earners having to adjust their pay as well. But, as usual it turns out that a quick Google search solves my question, but thanks anyway.

    [–]celtain 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oh I'm not saying a $15 minimum wage is a good idea, just that inflation probably isn't one of the problems it would cause.

    [–]-ThatGuyOnRedditFiscal Conservative 32ポイント33ポイント  (0子コメント)

    He literally has the economic understanding of a small child.

    [–]codyave 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

    http://i.imgur.com/a4Hs75K.jpg

    [–]yabbadabbadoo1 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Also kind of funny he doesn't pay his own interns what he is demanding of the country.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/25/bernie-sanders-demands-15-per-hour-minimum-wage-pays-his-own-interns-12-per-hour/

    [–]Ellsworthless 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't entirely disagree but the problem is that minimum wage isn't livable in many major cities. Paying them the same as they're getting now isn't really going to help.

    [–]chabanaisStronger than derp. 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

    He's such an idiot listening to him last night it's like fantasyland.

    [–]GaroldWilsonSnailJr[S] 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

    He's literally preaching for a utopia. It is fantasyland.

    [–]chabanaisStronger than derp. 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    He talked about how all of these people need to be controlled but we have to encourage small and medium businesses. Good luck with that.

    [–]IamtherealZyzz 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    He's in constant contradiction with himself. He wants social policies like europe but greater economic regulation even though most European countries are far more 'business friendly' and the best performing european economies are far more economically 'free.'

    [–]flyingburritoman -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    He's not there to win, he's there to make Hillary look like a centrist, all part of the plan.

    [–]srg2k5 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Lowering wages doesn't increase jobs just like raising them doesn't decrease them. It's the same for taxes. The fact is companies hire whatever they need to make their company work.

    [–]KadenTau 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thank christ I found you. I was taking a shot for every ignorant top level comment I found.

    [–]NakedAndBehindYou 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    The fact is companies hire whatever they need to make their company work.

    But if the cost of wages is more than the potential revenue to be made, the business goes bankrupt.

    [–]srg2k5 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Not how it works. With minimum wage hikes you have price of goods raised as well. However it happens at a lower scale than the wage increase. Which puts more money back into the lower classes hands. The price raise is felt harder by the upper class who often doesn't see an increase in their wages. So the real problem is high minimum wages are wealth redistribution. Learn some basic economic principles. If you can't pay your employees a living wage, then you shouldn't be in business anyways.

    [–]NakedAndBehindYou 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    But the market won't always tolerate an increase in a price of goods. At some point, the market will stop buying those goods and buy substitute goods, and the business goes under.

    The price raise is felt harder by the upper class

    What about people who are unemployed? They are hurt the worst of all by the price raises.

    So the real problem is high minimum wages are wealth redistribution.

    If your goal is wealth redistribution, then there are better ways to go about it than a minimum wage. Forcing a small business owner that earns $60,000 a year from his fast food franchise to pay $5000 a year more in wages to his cashiers is not a very good system of wealth redistribution. It would be much better to tax the income of the rich bank owner down the street who makes $1m a year instead, and give direct cash payments from those taxes to the poorest who need it most. Which, by the way, would probably be people who are totally unemployed with no job, not people who are employed with a low wage job.

    Learn some basic economic principles.

    Price floors lead to deadweight loss. This is macro economics 101. The minimum wage is a price floor.

    If you can't pay your employees a living wage, then you shouldn't be in business anyways.

    This is an emotional talking point that is not based on rationality. Who are you to decide whether a business owner and a worker should be able to agree to work together at a certain price point? Why should you have the right to restrict their freedom to enter into a contract of employment?

    The same logic of your statement could be turned against you: "If you can't start your own business that pays higher wages and still succeeds in the free market, then you shouldn't be telling other business owners what wages to pay their employees anyways".

    [–]srg2k5 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You seem to be the one working on emotional talking points, not me.

    [–]NakedAndBehindYou 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What did I say that was emotional?

    I mentioned substitute goods, a term from economics.

    I mentioned that price increases for goods produced by businesses that hire minimum wage workers will harm the unemployed the most, since they have no increase in wages to offset the price increase.

    I mentioned deadweight loss, which is another term from economics.

    I mentioned an example for why income tax is a better redistribution tool than minimum wage.

    The only part of my comment that could possibly be emotional was my last part, where I rephrased your own comment. And since I was using the same exact type of statement that you made, if my comment is irrationally emotional then yours must be too.

    That's 4 out of 5 points that are not emotional whatsoever, but purely based on facts.

    [–]TeaPartyOverlordSupporter 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Also mystifying is how on earth he thinks providing government subsidies for basic essentials for the underclass reduces income inequality at all. If anything, they'll be less motivated to improve their circumstances.

    [–]KadenTau 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If anything, they'll be less motivated to improve their circumstances.

    There's not enough money in circulation, nor a necessity for the amount of jobs we'd need to create for everyone to reach this magical upper-middle class ceiling that you seem to think exists for anyone who puts in the work.

    Why not just raise the ground floor and put in some stairs?

    (you digging these metaphors?)

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]MidnightTide 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

      So how does it go?

      If you can't afford to pay them 15/hr you don't deserve to be in business. Don't you love how stupid they sound?

      [–]Samuelgin 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Bernie only pays his interns $12. does that mean he doesn't deserve to be a candidate?

      [–]MichaelDeucalion 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

      I came here from r/all and honestly the lack of a circlejerk or anyone disputing these insults is making me uncomfortable

      [–]Daneruu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It's impossible to have a reasonable argument between two anonymous parties who are already strictly confident and unwavering in their position. Also there's the subreddit rules, which are very strict on arguments/debates. Basically don't challenge conservative viewpoints at all or you get deleted/banned. It makes sense, and I can totally understand their logic behind implementing the rule. Being a community of a minority opinion as a portion of a larger community with the opposite opinion opens the entire place up to a lot of brigading etc.

      That said, yeah a lot of the accusations and insults here are pretty damning. We could talk about the economic weaknesses Bernie has versus his strengths as a candidate, especially when it comes to social policies, but it's easier to just say "Hey look an irredeemable bad thing to latch onto!" and bring it up at the first sign of opposition of your opinion.

      It's not like raising the wage has any more steps involved other than:

      1: Raise the wage to 15/hr

      2: Watch everything bern.

      Right? Totally no other steps to take to possibly make the plan more feasible. /s

      In the end, politicians will always be 80% promises and 20% reliable explanations etc, just because anything else will result in being ignored. Good candidate or not, someone who gets no attention gets no votes, and not many people will have an attention span for a candidate with a 50 page speech for their plan on government/economic reform.

      In the end, yes these accusations are valid and reasonably concerning, but it's not something to bash a candidate as a whole for in my opinion.

      [–]KadenTau 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      It's like /r/politics except more than half the people are wrong or are just posting snarky regurgitated trash they got from Fox's facebook page instead of a dem's Twitter.

      [–]wagigkpn 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

      You forgot the core principle of socialism... Lets force everyone to conform.

      [–]JiggyLiggy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      How about we just force everyone to actually pay into the system instead of using tax havens and loopholes to cheat the system? How can anyone be against fixing these insane issues?

      [–]PingDawg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Or you can sign the tpp and ship the jobs to China today.

      [–]AsianVoodoo -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Guys I think I figured it out. Liberalism at its core is about escaping consequence for your mistakes and actions. Think about it.

      [–]JiggyLiggy 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I am still waiting for the trickle down economics plan to work. What was Ronald's timeline for that again? Oh that's right, the glass just keeps getting bigger, and nothing ever runs down to the bottom.

      [–]MichaelExe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Sure, but also the mistakes and actions of your parents or generally the situation you're born into, things which you did not get to decide.

      Cancer also isn't fun, and it's even worse when you have to pay for your treatment.

      [–]b_deam -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Irrelevant, but remember when a typical liberal argument against McCain was that he was too old to be president during the elections?

      [–]2BlackPeople -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      What a disheveled old fool.

      [–]Phaelanx 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      You could implement a system that gradually raises the minimal salary based on age.

      [–]flyingburritoman 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Then you'll be accused of ageism. Not gonna happen.

      [–]KadenTau 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Is everything a slippery slope with you people?

      [–]Gaggamaggot -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      He's a genius!

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)