• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biden/Schumer/Pelosi Accountability Thread

He called a restaurant owner a slaveholder. But, sure, I’m the asshole.

I’m also a W-2 employee and my wife is a W-2 employee that gets paid by taxpayers.

and I bet both you and your wife don't refrain from offering your opinion on stuff that might not involve being a W-2 employee paid by taxpayers. Just like Brasky.
 
all of those comments were unfair shots at someone sharing his mother's specific situation; I don't understand claiming to have empathy for people and then calling her a slaveowner

I definitely agree that the national minimum wage is too low at its current level. I don't agree that $15 is the right amount in rural SC, or WV. $15 is definitely too low to provide anything approaching a living wage in the Silicon Valley. And in my opinion, there should be room for reasoned debate on the right level without invoking slavery.

Then SC and WV should raise their minimum wage so the federal government doesn’t do it for them.
 
Good post.

For the record, I am strongly in favor of the $15 minimum wage, but speaking in absolutes about the effects of increasing the minimum wage seems misguided. I think it’s the single most controversial topic amongst economists.

Is it? We have 80+ years of history of a minimum wage and various increases, and the evidence strongly points toward overall positive effects.
 
Is it? We have 80+ years of history of a minimum wage and various increases, and the evidence strongly points toward overall positive effects.

I’m not an economist, but yes, I believe it is. There was a segment on NPR in which they were talking to an economist and she said something to the effect of, “if you want 10+ hours of debate, ask a room of economists their opinion on minimum wage.”
 
Economists are largely full of shit and many are committed to justifying inequality.

Slavery is a pretty important landmark in the history of US labor. Hard to have a legitimate discussion of minimum wage without understanding the constant desire by management to pay people nothing to work hard.
 
there are not 140 Americans living below the poverty line as defined by US Census

but I agree with the general sentiment: higher taxes at the top, bump the minimum wage, better state coverage of the essentials of life: housing, healthcare, food, childcare, education, etc.

Yes sorry, I was conflating two arguments.

Apparently 32 million Americans make less than $15 per hour and would benefit from a hike
 
Brasky speaks very boldly about small business owners and the economics of small businesses for a W-2 Employee paid by Taxpayers.

all of those comments were unfair shots at someone sharing his mother's specific situation; I don't understand claiming to have empathy for people and then calling her a slaveowner

I definitely agree that the national minimum wage is too low at its current level. I don't agree that $15 is the right amount in rural SC, or WV. $15 is definitely too low to provide anything approaching a living wage in the Silicon Valley. And in my opinion, there should be room for reasoned debate on the right level without invoking slavery.

They should pay people a living wage. The Confederacy lost, slavery is over.

Quoting this last post because I didn’t remember calling the women in question a slave owner. And I didn’t.

Now did I compare our current economic system of paying people poverty wages and the cycle of hopelessness and debt it causes to slavery? Yes I did.

But you’re right, it’s not slavery. It’s far more similar to sharecropping, which to be fair, is a baby step better than slavery.

You make $7.25/hour or $15-16K/year if you’re able to work 40/hrs every week, all year. You work other jobs to keep the lights on, you get into debt and then spend any extra money you having paying off that debt. You also have to personally pay for the tools of your trade (car/bus/train for transportation, appropriate wrk clothing, cell phone, internet access, etc), which you also have to go into debt for. And that doesn't include for health care or any of life's emergencies. It’s an endless cycle of poverty that most will never escape.

Cav - do you know how I can explain the historical comparison between Sharecropping and $7.25/hr in today's world? Because I’m a state employee that gets a W-2 (I don’t understand that dig) that educates the children that you seem to have no problem keeping trapped in this poverty cycle.
 
Last edited:
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Obama didn't create massive cuts. He had to extend some of Bush's to also extend EITC, unemployment and cut Social Security taxes. It didn't cut any individual taxes but kept millions from having their taxes increased.

In no way is it comparable to W or Trump.
 
Cav I’d also reciprocate and take a swipe at your profession, but I know enough corporate/business lawyers to understand that you probably hate your pointless career enough for the both of us.
 
Yes sorry, I was conflating two arguments.

Apparently 32 million Americans make less than $15 per hour and would benefit from a hike

It’s nuts that 100 people can directly increase wages for over 20% of the workforce and they just won’t do it.
 
Brasky, my point is you have never been concerned about labor costs and you will never have to worry about your hours getting cut because of an increase in labor costs for your employer.

I’m on the record saying I support a living wage and that anybody that works 40 hours per week should not have to rely on government handouts to get by.
 
Brasky, my point is you have never been concerned about labor costs and you will never have to worry about your hours getting cut because of an increase in labor costs for your employer.

I’m on the record saying I support a living wage and that anybody that works 40 hours per week should not have to rely on government handouts to get by.

I’m sure you believe the last part, but what’s the practical yearly number that’s needed to make that happen? Most of us would argue at least $30K+/year, even in our poorest states, especially if you’re paying for your own health insurance. What about if you have children, or elderly dependents? What about pre-existing health conditions? What about life? Which is unpredictable, and ruthless, and fucking expensive.

Isn’t a small business owner who pays their employees $7-8-9-10/hr knowingly placing their employees on government aid? Why does the government need to provide welfare to their employees, because they are not willing to pay a living wage? How is that scenario a net positive for our society? Why am I the tax payer subsidizing the wages of these people?

And before you break into the HS kid who doesn’t need the money argument, wouldn’t we be better served with our unemployed adults working those jobs? $15/hr is a hell of an incentive to get off your couch and starting looking for work again. It’s better than what they get in charitable and government relief, and it provides a level of dignity and hope that so many lack.
 
I’m not an economist, but yes, I believe it is. There was a segment on NPR in which they were talking to an economist and she said something to the effect of, “if you want 10+ hours of debate, ask a room of economists their opinion on minimum wage.”

Well if one economist on NPR said it’s true, it must be!
 
I’m sure you believe the last part, but what’s the practical yearly number that’s needed to make that happen? Most of us would argue at least $30K+/year, even in our poorest states, especially if you’re paying for your own health insurance. What about if you have children, or elderly dependents? What about pre-existing health conditions? What about life? Which is unpredictable, and ruthless, and fucking expensive.

Isn’t a small business owner who pays their employees $7-8-9-10/hr knowingly placing their employees on government aid? Why does the government need to provide welfare to their employees, because they are not willing to pay a living wage? How is that scenario a net positive for our society? Why am I the tax payer subsidizing the wages of these people?

And before you break into the HS kid who doesn’t need the money argument, wouldn’t we be better served with our unemployed adults working those jobs? $15/hr is a hell of an incentive to get off your couch and starting looking for work again. It’s better than what they get in charitable and government relief, and it provides a level of dignity and hope that so many lack.

So, how does this affect your argument? The restaurant in question is only open three hours a day (11-2), three days a week (was five before pandemic). Catering is extra, and only a couple employees participate in that. All employees are part time. None of the employees are expected to make a living off this job, it is only a side gig.

To be clear, I am very much for a government which takes a larger role in protecting its citizens. National healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy (even as low as $150K and up), higher minimum wage, give me all your socialist checks on on our capitalist system. We need them. And frankly, I hope my mother is out of the restaurant business before this phases in fully anyway. She doesn't need to be working that hard when she is 70. But one of the things that everyone seems to love in this country is quaint little shops and cafes owned by locals on a sleepy Main Street, America and I was wondering if those businesses would still be feasible if this were enacted. Especially if there are not supplemental bills/riders to support those small businesses.
 
The problem is her business model. Being open only three hours a day, five days a week makes it nearly impossible to make a profit in the restaurant business regardless of the minimum wage.
 
The problem is her business model. Being open only three hours a day, five days a week makes it nearly impossible to make a profit in the restaurant business regardless of the minimum wage.

She was doing fine before the pandemic. The lunch crowd was enough to pay the bills, then she made her money on corporate catering. Having to cut capacity, combined with a decided lack of large corporate events over the past year, has hurt, but they have gotten by. I would assume that if she could get back to her pre-pandemic numbers, she would be able to manage with the wage hike, but at the current level, it would be too much. But this whole conversation started from a couple minutes of a phone call, not an extensive look at her finances. It make me do a bit of a double take, because it was a different side of the issue that I hadn't really thought about. So naturally, I brought it over here to get some other opinions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top