OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

I am someone who believes in the separation of political power into federal, state, and local buckets as long as none infringe on individual rights and I think that is unfortunately given a bad name by virtue of both pro-slavery and segregationist interests using states rights as an argument in support of them (which fail, IMO). I tend to agree in this case. The fact is that the right minimum wage for San Francisco or Manhattan is not the right minimum wage for many places where the cost of living is not nearly as high. I would argue for a higher minimum wage in my state, but I agree that the state is better able to set an appropriately tailored level.

---

I see the validity of your argument but the reason I disagree is that with 50 different minimums (more when counting local) you create a race to the bottom. If Alabama raises their minimum more than Mississippi, Alabama would be hurt. They would have to go back down and no workers are lifted.

I think less harm is caused by a robust Federal minimum wage and states can still go higher if they choose.

The federal wage is a minimum currently it is $7.25 per hour. Some states ( Pennsylvania, Texas, others) currently honor the minimum. California, NY, Mass will fall in at $15.00. The last time it was raised was 2009.

People tend to think of this as a teenager at McD issue but it's no longer that; it is families trying to survive with one, two or three minimum wage jobs. The job losses are minimal compared to increasing worker pay by some 300 billion; workers who are disproportionately minorities . So compared to tax cuts here is something that is actually positive for inequality and is popular in both red and blue states with a large majority of voters.

Anarchistbear said:

---

The federal wage is a minimum currently it is $7.25 per hour. Some states ( Pennsylvania, Texas, others) currently honor the minimum. California, NY, Mass will fall in at $15.00. The last time it was raised was 2009.

People tend to think of this as a teenager at McD issue but it's no longer that; it is families trying to survive with one, two or three minimum wage jobs. The job losses are minimal compared to increasing worker pay by some 300 billion; workers who are disproportionately minorities . So compared to tax cuts here is something that is actually positive for inequality and is popular in both red and blue states with a large majority of voters.

---

I am not arguing that $7.25 is enough anywhere. I can imagine that there are places in Pennsylvania, Texas (e.g., Austin may have a city minimum wage higher than $7.25) that go above the Federal minimum even if the state itself has not adopted it. I just cannot imaging that if $15 is the right minimum wage in California, $15 is also the right amount for backwoods Kentucky. Because if $15 is the right amount in Kentucky, no way that $15 is enough in CA.

Where you and I will agree is that the minimum wage should never be lower than what is needed to support a living (meaning housing and food and utilities) on a 40 hour a week schedule. Anything less than that is just disjointed pricing on consumer products.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

I am someone who believes in the separation of political power into federal, state, and local buckets as long as none infringe on individual rights and I think that is unfortunately given a bad name by virtue of both pro-slavery and segregationist interests using states rights as an argument in support of them (which fail, IMO). I tend to agree in this case. The fact is that the right minimum wage for San Francisco or Manhattan is not the right minimum wage for many places where the cost of living is not nearly as high. I would argue for a higher minimum wage in my state, but I agree that the state is better able to set an appropriately tailored level.

---

I see the validity of your argument but the reason I disagree is that with 50 different minimums (more when counting local) you create a race to the bottom. If Alabama raises their minimum more than Mississippi, Alabama would be hurt. They would have to go back down and no workers are lifted.

I think less harm is caused by a robust Federal minimum wage and states can still go higher if they choose.

---

I think that is a fair point. I would say that argues for a federal floor. I'm not sure where that floor would be. If I were lord of the universe, the states would all pass at least a $15 minimum wage. The question is how much is the race to the bottom impacting and I'll be honest I just don't know the answer. Most jobs in any state are tied to that state and won't move because minimum wage is lower elsewhere.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

---

Clearly that is not true. Otherwise, we would raise minimum wage to $10,000 an hour and watch our economy skyrocket. There is a balance between what costs can be passed on to customers (including those on fixed income), what corresponding inflation can be a positive, what costs can be absorbed in light of competition in a global economy, and what small businesses without pricing power can bear. Again, my belief is that states are better to calibrate considering how different states are (most companies have wage adjusters for each state). Not saying that the current federal minimum is not too low, but it should not be higher than what can be justified as the minimum for any state in the country.

---

I remember taking Econ 1 and having a liberal formula and conservative formula put in front of me. I remember thinking "but the liberal formula means we should have a 100% tax rate and 100% government spending and that is not right. And the conservative formula means we should have a 0% tax rate and 0% spending and that is not right. Hmmmm."

Basically we have a fundamental problem with our government that wherever the "right answer" actually is, one side will always argue that the right answer is in one direction and the other side will always argue the other.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

---

Clearly that is not true. Otherwise, we would raise minimum wage to $10,000 an hour and watch our economy skyrocket. There is a balance between what costs can be passed on to customers (including those on fixed income), what corresponding inflation can be a positive, what costs can be absorbed in light of competition in a global economy, and what small businesses without pricing power can bear. Again, my belief is that states are better to calibrate considering how different states are (most companies have wage adjusters for each state). Not saying that the current federal minimum is not too low, but it should not be higher than what can be justified as the minimum for any state in the country.

---

I remember taking Econ 1 and having a liberal formula and conservative formula put in front of me. I remember thinking "but the liberal formula means we should have a 100% tax rate and 100% government spending and that is not right. And the conservative formula means we should have a 0% tax rate and 0% spending and that is not right. Hmmmm."

Basically we have a fundamental problem with our government that wherever the "right answer" actually is, one side will always argue that the right answer is in one direction and the other side will always argue the other.

---

That is true. And which way one goes is based on natural biases, and there will always be some stat to support either side. I think it would be nice to go back to debate on which position is better for America on matters like this that will actually impact the lives of people instead of name calling, tribal base instincts that may inflame our emotions but don't impact real lives. Because on matters like this, there can be a compromise among Americans who love the country, and the right answer probably resides somewhere between the two positions.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Don't forget and defending our democracy from those who seek to destroy it. Admittedly that has not always needed to be a part of the domestic platform.

If HankyPhD cared to understand the democrat party platform rather than continuing to fail as a troll, he would see that, unlike the Republican party which literally failed to even create a 2020 platform, the democrats have policy objectives. But pathetic trolling is Hanky's entire policy platform, so to speak and he's taken on the main republican governing performative art - projection.

---

Hanky's troll was weak, but I'm glad to see we've been able to spin it into an actually somewhat substantive discussion about the minimum wage.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform.

---

Well, that and $15 minimum wage and universal health care.

---

Why not $25 / hour?

---

I don't know. What is the conservative proposal?

---

Status quo.

---

I think it is always a delicate balance between job loss and closure of small businesses with bringing people above the poverty level.

What I would suggest is that, while there could be an argument under negative commerce clause for the federal government to raise the minimum wage, this is something that is better left to the states to consider what the local cost of living is and what the local economy can bear.

---

CBO analysis can only take you so far. If the CBO did an analysis of social security it would say it is a job killer, when the opposite is true. Social security increases jobs because people spend more instead of saving every penny for their retirement. Higher minimum wages grow jobs because people spend more. What I am saying may not be true for all economies at all times, since economics is about equilibriums, but I strongly believe in our current economy what I am saying is true.

---

Clearly that is not true. Otherwise, we would raise minimum wage to $10,000 an hour and watch our economy skyrocket. There is a balance between what costs can be passed on to customers (including those on fixed income), what corresponding inflation can be a positive, what costs can be absorbed in light of competition in a global economy, and what small businesses without pricing power can bear. Again, my belief is that states are better to calibrate considering how different states are (most companies have wage adjusters for each state). Not saying that the current federal minimum is not too low, but it should not be higher than what can be justified as the minimum for any state in the country.

---

I remember taking Econ 1 and having a liberal formula and conservative formula put in front of me. I remember thinking "but the liberal formula means we should have a 100% tax rate and 100% government spending and that is not right. And the conservative formula means we should have a 0% tax rate and 0% spending and that is not right. Hmmmm."

Basically we have a fundamental problem with our government that wherever the "right answer" actually is, one side will always argue that the right answer is in one direction and the other side will always argue the other.

---

You know you are dealing with a hack when they always have the same answer. I think taxes on the wealthy need to go up. In 1980 taxes on the wealthy needed to come down. What's the equilibrium?

Back to minimum wages. In 1968 the minimum wage was $1.60. Growth by inflation is $10.55. Growth by personal income growth is $21.16. $15.00 seems like a reasonable number.

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

I think it would help if you understood where industrial technology is going. All you need to do is read Roper's, Rockwell's, Emerson's or Honeywell's 10-K or listen to their investor day presentation. Or look at where the money is going by manufacturers and how much money is being spend by manufacturers on automation, industrial software and automated workflows. All of the automation by Amazon in their warehouse is a precursor to where one of their next big revenue source is. And they are also incorporating cheap, commodity type of products to support manufacturing and maintenance as part of their AWS to bring connected manufacturing workflow into the cloud services. Countries like India and China can still provide cheap labor for now because full automation has not been fully incorporated and because they have no unions, no labor protection and no minimum wage - just mass overpopulation of people who will do anything to make something. Why would we want to compete there? Think of Pittsburg. They were falling behind in the steel industry because other countries were doing it better, cheaper. Now they are thriving in healthcare and tech and people there are economically better off. Better off than if we fought a tariff war to protect steel. Figure out better training and financial support (this was one of Yang's pitch because as an investor he also sees where manufacturing in light of automation is going) instead of propping segments that are dying.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where themany politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

---

My sentiments exactly.

---

Me too. That, in a nutshell, was my PEIS major. Would add that we need to do more to help those who, for whatever reason, arrive at age 18 never having developed that "delayed gratification" ethic. Oftentimes, they just don't know any better, through no fault of their own. We all bear some responsibility for them, to some extent.

---

I would suggest that parents have to take some responsibility. We were by all measures lower middle class, but my parents embedded into my thinking from an early age that they want a better life for my brother and me and that they will sacrifice whatever they needed to so that we could get a college education. Not going to college was not an option. We still made some poor decisions, like my brother going to Stanford (on a scholarship at least), but it was never an option not to go to college.

---

Of course parents have to take some responsibility. But when they are unsuccessful, for whatever reason, we as a society should make a reasonable effort to create opportunities and to encourage people to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them.

My family background seems to be similar to those of OaktownBear and yourself and we pretty much agree on this general issue.

Compared to the one time $600 placebo raising the minimum wage is targeted - minorities, women, "essential workers"- most struggling to keep their heads above water and a majority working full time. It's also one of the few things that is overwhelming popular across red and blue.

Bernie Sanders is in the Senate. Why can't he get the Senate to deliver a $15 minimum wage?

The great thing about these impeachment hearings is we get to see Democrats being stupid again.

The election was stolen according to Democrats.

BearChemist said:

---

BearFarce is desperate for being relevant in the Trump party. After all, none of his efforts on BI was acknowledged (yet) in the impeachment trial.

---

The impeachment trial is a circus and it's the Democrats and the pathetic media that are making the U.S. an embarrassment to the world.

Only Democrats are allowed to get away with stuff they constantly accuse Republicans of. Only Democrats can say elections are rigged.

BearForce2 said:

---

---

So what are you guys going to do about turncoat McConnell?

" 61% of Republican Voters Don't Think Biden Was Elected Fairly "

That actually makes me giggle and takes me to my Happy Place. A party of crooks in severe mental anguish because they delusionally think they got out crooked.

MAGABear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

---

It's funny how anyone who disagrees on some issue or goes against a left wing narrative is conservative, Trump supporter, or Nazi. It only works in one direction too. According to BI, Yogi is the biggest Trump supporter there is.

---

Liberals today have nothing to hang their hat on other than being anti-Trump and labeling everyone a racist or bigot. That's their entire policy platform. It's why they always call everyone who disagrees w them a Nazi. Intellectual inferior people who just shot names like a 5th grader.

---

---

If I saw anyone wearing that shirt, I'd damage it beyond repair

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

So what are you guys going to do about turncoat McConnell?

---

He's not up for election again for another six years and only the voters in Kentucky will have a say then. Of course, if the Democrats couldn't get him out spending $94 million to defeat him, I doubt very strongly they'll do better in six years. Your best hope is retirement.

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

So what are you guys going to do about turncoat McConnell?

---

He's not up for election again for another six years and only the voters in Kentucky will have a say then. Of course, if the Democrats couldn't get him out spending $94 million to defeat him, I doubt very strongly they'll do better in six years. Your best hope is retirement.

---

It's not my best hope. I don't care who Kentucky's Republican Senator is. My best hope is for McConnell to be in the minority. My question is for the Trump lovers who have many prominent Republican Senators in office who freely disparage Trump. Sounds like the Republican Party is very divided.

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

So what are you guys going to do about turncoat McConnell?

---

He's not up for election again for another six years and only the voters in Kentucky will have a say then. Of course, if the Democrats couldn't get him out spending $94 million to defeat him, I doubt very strongly they'll do better in six years. Your best hope is retirement.

---

It's not my best hope. I don't care who Kentucky's Republican Senator is. My best hope is for McConnell to be in the minority. My question is for the Trump lovers who have many prominent Republican Senators in office who freely disparage Trump. Sounds like the Republican Party is very divided.

---

There is nothing the Republicans can do about it folks. Though maybe Trump will work with the second amendment people to do something about it. I don't know. Maybe.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

So what are you guys going to do about turncoat McConnell?

---

He's not up for election again for another six years and only the voters in Kentucky will have a say then. Of course, if the Democrats couldn't get him out spending $94 million to defeat him, I doubt very strongly they'll do better in six years. Your best hope is retirement.

---

It's not my best hope. I don't care who Kentucky's Republican Senator is. My best hope is for McConnell to be in the minority. My question is for the Trump lovers who have many prominent Republican Senators in office who freely disparage Trump. Sounds like the Republican Party is very divided.

---

There is nothing the Republicans can do about it folks. Though maybe Trump will work with the second amendment people to do something about it. I don't know. Maybe.

---

Jesus christ, you are f*****d in the head.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

So what are you guys going to do about turncoat McConnell?

---

He's not up for election again for another six years and only the voters in Kentucky will have a say then. Of course, if the Democrats couldn't get him out spending $94 million to defeat him, I doubt very strongly they'll do better in six years. Your best hope is retirement.

---

It's not my best hope. I don't care who Kentucky's Republican Senator is. My best hope is for McConnell to be in the minority. My question is for the Trump lovers who have many prominent Republican Senators in office who freely disparage Trump. Sounds like the Republican Party is very divided.

---

There is nothing the Republicans can do about it folks. Though maybe Trump will work with the second amendment people to do something about it. I don't know. Maybe.

---

Jesus christ, you are f*****d in the head.

---

You just said Trump is ****ed in the head

What amazes me is the magnitude of stupidity to take the originally posted Time article as proof of any kind of voter fraud.

BearChemist said:

---

What amazes me is the magnitude of stupidity to take the originally posted Time article as proof of any kind of voter fraud.

---

It's easy. Don't actually read the article, just the headline. Then you can make up whatever you want.

sycasey said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

What amazes me is the magnitude of stupidity to take the originally posted Time article as proof of any kind of voter fraud.

---

It's easy. Don't actually read the article, just the headline. Then you can make up whatever you want.

---

Even better. Just read the tweet from your favorite liar pundit and proceed from there.

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Seems like 50-60 failed court cases should tell us what we need to know about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.