Support NeoGAF

[Gattsu25]

I understand the whole "fucking noob" mentality as it's the same with every board but how did I place myself "in a class above this entire forum"? I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're trying to say with that statement.

Trounced? Hardly but if you want to feel like you "won" an argument on the internet, well, whatever keeps your dick hard I guess.

Mainly talking about this:

Being new to GAF, maybe I overestimated the user base. Next time (when I'm not a fucking noob member) I'll try to keep my responses to one liners and gifs.

You're generalizing an entire forum based on a fraction of posts in one thread and stating that you are going to have to dumb yourself down to get on our level. Don't handle this the same way you handled the people that typed out numerous paragraphs in response to you (by being severely dismissive).


Not saying you need to apologize...just don't be insulting to an entire forum because you are miffed that not many people agree with you.

 

[Hibachi]

I think a troubling part of GAF discourse can be the tendency for bandwagons to get started without any conscious decision. The userbase is predominantly socialist-liberal, and also highly opinionated. As such, whenever anyone comes along with an opposite viewpoint, they'll have a large number of respondents. Most of those will try and post contributive material, but one or two will post .gifs or one-liners. Unfortunately, when you are the person in the line of fire, you notice the shitty posts much more than you do the good posts, simply because they're often insulting of your opinion. This immediately makes tempers short and can lead to some unfortunate generalizations. It's also extremely difficult to respond to as many posts as are often made, which can lead to the odd-man-out having to post short responses without much detail simply to cover a fair number of the opposition in a reasonable amount of time. Naturally, this makes that opposition feel like the odd-man-out isn't fully engaging in the debate, which coupled with earlier generalizations, can make things descend into petty name-calling quite quickly, all without any original intent of malice. It's not really my place to say, Hibachi, but I think if you were to start your argument again from the start and then pick one or two people to acknowledge and ask the rest just to have some patience, we might get a meaningful conversation out of this.

Completely fair and thank you for the post.

If the way I made my original comments conveyed a tone of arrogance or malice, that was completely unintentional.

Having another confirmation that the user base here is mostly left leaning, I'll try to keep my opinions on political matters to myself in the future as I'm about as far removed from "socialist-liberal" as possible.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I understand the whole "fucking noob" mentality as it's the same with every board but how did I place myself "in a class above this entire forum"? I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're trying to say with that statement.

Trounced? Hardly but if you want to feel like you "won" an argument on the internet, well, whatever keeps your dick hard I guess.

I mean you demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the topic you were debating, then said you overestimated this board and that it's a bunch of idiots posting gifs. That's what I mean by placing yourself in a class above the members of this forum, because that's what you literally laid out in your own words.

 

[legend166]

People need to realise the best way to get rid of a welfare state is to get rid of the need for people to be on welfare in the first place.

Set up an economy whereby people can make a living wage doing an honest weeks work, and you'll take millions off welfare, leading to a smaller government.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Completely fair and thank you for the post.

If the way I made my original comments conveyed a tone of arrogance or malice, that was completely unintentional.

Having another confirmation that the user base here is mostly left leaning, I'll try to keep my opinions on political matters to myself in the future as I'm about as far removed from "socialist-liberal" as possible.

We don't bite. CyclopsRock is a wacky libertarian (of some sort, I think) and he seems to do fine in political threads. I'll tell you one thing. We may be a bunch of godless socialists, but even with that, it's still far more even handed and filled with facts than the comment section of Reason, RedState, or The National Review.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Having another confirmation that the user base here is mostly left leaning, I'll try to keep my opinions on political matters to myself in the future as I'm about as far removed from "socialist-liberal" as possible.

I don't think it's the views that are problematic. There are plenty of well-known users who are various forms of market-libertarian / conservative / etc, and they get along fine in debates. There's just a somewhat higher burden of patience placed upon them.

 

[Hibachi]

Mainly talking about this:
You're generalizing an entire forum based on a fraction of posts in one thread and stating that you are going to have to dumb yourself down to get on our level. Don't handle this the same way you handled the people that typed out numerous paragraphs in response to you (by being severely dismissive).


Not saying you need to apologize...just don't be insulting to an entire forum because you are miffed that not many people agree with you.

At first I thought he/she was trying to imply that I'm part of the "wealthy class" which is where I'm deriving my views from or something.

I see, now, how that came off and you're right, that comment did do a disservice to those that took the time to actually type out a legitimate response.

And I'm not "miffed" at all; haven't been this entire thread. I knew going in I'd have the unpopular opinion. I wish others could remove their emotions from their argument but that's pretty par for the course, IME, with liberals.

 

[HappyBivouac]

People need to realise the best way to get rid of a welfare state is to get rid of the need for people to be on welfare in the first place.

Set up an economy whereby people can make a living wage doing an honest weeks work, and you'll take millions off welfare, leading to a smaller government.

I love this idea and agree, but this kind of fictional economy relies on the premise of people on the whole giving a lot more of a damn about each other than they do currently.

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

I think it starts at about $60k but it's in North Dakota.

That's your problem. You're stuck in a shitty state that nobody wants to go to. You see, you're from a part of the country that us civilized folk call DUMBFUCKISTAN. It's where Republicans go to scratch their ass and pretend that they're civilized while they go around laughing about civil rights and how us uppity minorities should be happy for what we have.

I'd rather be dead broke in Rhode Island or Boston than have money in that boring ass state.

 

[LaserBuddha]

And I'm not "miffed" at all; haven't been this entire thread. I knew going in I'd have the unpopular opinion. I wish others could remove their emotions from their argument but that's pretty par for the course, IME, with liberals.

You're your own worst enemy.

 

[Hibachi]

I mean you demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the topic you were debating, then said you overestimated this board and that it's a bunch of idiots posting gifs. That's what I mean by placing yourself in a class above the members of this forum, because that's what you literally laid out in your own words.

I don't know if you're trying to just be witty or you really don't see the irony in your posts but ok. Disagreeing with LaserBuddha = demonstrated lack of knowledge; got it.

That wasn't my intent, as I've said, but to the (admittedly few) posters that that statement would apply to, I stand by it if you want to look at it that way.

 

[HappyBivouac]

At first I thought he/she was trying to imply that I'm part of the "wealthy class" which is where I'm deriving my views from or something.

I see, now, how that came off and you're right, that comment did do a disservice to those that took the time to actually type out a legitimate response.

And I'm not "miffed" at all; haven't been this entire thread. I knew going in I'd have the unpopular opinion. I wish others could remove their emotions from their argument but that's pretty par for the course, IME, with liberals.

This (bolded) is the kind of thing you need to stop doing if you want to be taken more seriously. There are a couple people in here doing the "ugh, libertarians" thing too, and from both sides this kind of talk is pretty painful to read. All it does is paint you as having an "us vs. them" mentality, and you end up looking like a very irrational person as a result.

Nobody will ever have a meaningful conversation as long as people keep doing the "damn libruls/conservatives" thing. There's no rationality in lumping people together like that.

 

[Hibachi]

That's your problem. You're stuck in a shitty state that nobody wants to go to. You see, you're from a part of the country that us civilized folk call DUMBFUCKISTAN. It's where Republicans go to scratch their ass and pretend that they're civilized while they go around laughing about civil rights and how us uppity minorities should be happy for what we have.

I'd rather be dead broke in Rhode Island or Boston than have money in that boring ass state.

Case in point LB ^

Lol

 

[Gattsu25]

And I'm not "miffed" at all; haven't been this entire thread. I knew going in I'd have the unpopular opinion. I wish others could remove their emotions from their argument but that's pretty par for the course, IME, with liberals.

I figured you were by your repeated insults to the people you are debating (speaking about your "liberal" insults).

I wouldn't do this either. You are treating an entire group of people as illogical or entirely ruled by emotions when they are also just people like you. You are again lessening their emotional maturity and will, again, act shocked when they respond as if you have personally insulted them....because you are.

If you have the desire to toss in a snide insult against the people you are debating, then you might want to sit back, cool down and collect your emotions, and then reword your post. If you do not realize that these one-off comments are insulting then maybe you need to remove yourself from whatever vitriolic influences (workplace discussion, potentially biased news sources, etc) are making you feel that these comments are neutral.

 

[Hibachi]

This (bolded) is the kind of thing you need to stop doing if you want to be taken more seriously. There are a couple people in here doing the "ugh, libertarians" thing too, and from both sides this kind of talk is pretty painful to read. All it does is paint you as having an "us vs. them" mentality, and you end up looking like a very irrational person as a result.

Nobody will ever have a meaningful conversation as long as people keep doing the "damn libruls/conservatives" thing. There's no rationality in lumping people together like that.

They can bash libertarians and progressives all they want; I'm neither.

You're correct though, that kind of talk isn't very indicative of a mature discussion.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Case in point LB ^

Lol

Fact for fact you beaten, on the facts. You don't even need to admit you were wrong, just drop it at least. But to declare that a group of people, many of whom debated circles around you, are childishly blinded by emotion? Face reality man.

 

[kyser73]

Unionization doesn't necessarily lead to prosperity. It worked great in countries such as Germany but caused no end of trouble in countries such as the UK. Speaking of the car manufacturing industries, one rose to great heights the other nearly finished off.

Not to say I don't agree with the article.

The UK/Germany comparison only goes so far given the differences in things like industrial reactions, social attitudes toward class and so on. There's also a historical component of post-Imperial entitlement & failure to invest & advance in the UK through the whole post-war era which Germany simply didn't - and still doesn't - have.

The decline of UK industry isn't as simple as the 'It was the union's fault' narrative that's been common currency since Thatcher - and those issues haven't gone away either, sadly.

 

[Hibachi]

Fact for fact you beaten, on the facts. You don't even need to admit you were wrong, just drop it at least. But to engage in this fantasy that people, many of whom debated circles around you, are childishly blinded by emotion? The combined irony and delusion of that is what upsets people.

Again, your/their "facts" are as easily dismissed as my "facts". The only difference is that I never tried to belittle you for not accepting them as such. Go ahead to continue posting about fantasy and delusion while drowning in both but, unless you have something new to add, I'll spend my time addressing other posters going forward.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Again, your/their "facts" are as easily dismissed as my "facts". The only difference is that I never tried to belittle you for not accepting them as such. Go ahead to continue posting about fantasy and delusion while drowning in both but, unless you have something new to add, I'll spend my time addressing other posters going forward.

Try not to call them a bunch of idiots, that will make it easier.

EDIT: I think it's a little unfair to throw around "facts" with quotation marks, when what I among others showed you were facts along the lines of "2 plus 2 does not equal 5". Yes, anything can be dismissed if you choose to, and that's why dismissal doesn't mean anything. But okay, the outcome was hazy.

 

[Hibachi]

Try not to call them a bunch of idiots, that will make it easier.

Your words, not mine.

 

[Zaptruder]

If you're going to go against the GAF orthodoxy, you better have an elephant hide for skin.

 

[zero shift]

I think a troubling part of GAF discourse can be the tendency for bandwagons to get started without any conscious decision. The userbase is predominantly socialist-liberal, and also highly opinionated. As such, whenever anyone comes along with an opposite viewpoint, they'll have a large number of respondents. Most of those will try and post contributive material, but one or two will post .gifs or one-liners. Unfortunately, when you are the person in the line of fire, you notice the shitty posts much more than you do the good posts, simply because they're often insulting of your opinion. This immediately makes tempers short and can lead to some unfortunate generalizations. It's also extremely difficult to respond to as many posts as are often made, which can lead to the odd-man-out having to post short responses without much detail simply to cover a fair number of the opposition in a reasonable amount of time. Naturally, this makes that opposition feel like the odd-man-out isn't fully engaging in the debate, which coupled with earlier generalizations, can make things descend into petty name-calling quite quickly, all without any original intent of malice. It's not really my place to say, Hibachi, but I think if you were to start your argument again from the start and then pick one or two people to acknowledge and ask the rest just to have some patience, we might get a meaningful conversation out of this.

The problem is his responses are sort of asking for such behavior. He's been aggressive since he got here. If you have shit thrown toward you you don't throw your own back if you don't want to have a big mess.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's not worth one's time to debate with someone who tries to argue the meta of the debate than the actual ideology and points they're trying to debate.

Unionization doesn't necessarily lead to prosperity. It worked great in countries such as Germany but caused no end of trouble in countries such as the UK. Speaking of the car manufacturing industries, one rose to great heights the other nearly finished off.

Not to say I don't agree with the article.

There's a point to be made that part of this problem is a lot of the large unions have become completely incompetent at doing their job. They no longer fight for the worker.

 

[Hibachi]

The problem is his responses are sort of asking for such behavior. He's been aggressive since he got here. If you have shit thrown toward you you don't throw your own back if you don't want to have a big mess.

If anything I posted has been "aggressive" then holy shit, OT GAF has a pretty thin skin.

 

[kyser73]

'Predominantly socialist-liberal'

I presume this is the American rather than European concept of socialist? I've not seen too many people on Gaf arguing for communal ownership of the means of production.

Wanting state-provided universal healthcare isn't socialist, nor is the idea of some kind of welfare provision, unions or workers' rights.

 

[Funky Papa]

There’s a popular discounting company in Chicago called Groupon, where the account executives -- who are all expected to have bachelors’ degrees -- earn $37,800 a year. Adjusted for modern dollars, that's about Stanley’s starting wage, without overtime. Because they’re educated and sit safely at desks, they don’t think of themselves as blue-collar mopes who need to strike for higher pay and better working conditions.

This is critical.

More people should take a long look at their office politics and salaries. Maybe then they'd realize that working from a chair and in a place with AC does not mean being above the janitor who just cleaned the coffee spill by the watercooler. Human decency and respect for your fellow coworkers trump all, but even if you adhere to classes, you need to realize that desk monkeys are as low rung as they come. They just dress better.

Looking at some of the responses in the GED thread, I feel that many people don't have the smallest idea of how class works.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

'Predominantly socialist-liberal'

I presume this is the American rather than European concept of socialist? I've not seen too many people on Gaf arguing for communal ownership of the means of production.

Wanting state-provided universal healthcare isn't socialist, nor is the idea of some kind of welfare provision, unions or workers' rights.

I've not seen the Party of European Socialists arguing for communal ownership of the means of production, either. Most of these labels are fairly flexible and denote rough categories at best. But yes, I mean socialist as in 'prefers a private-property system regulated by government', rather than 'prefers a collective-property system regulated by workers' collectives'. That said, there's a fair amount of the latter on GAF too.

 

[wildfire]

Pretty much how I figured this "discussion" would go. Cute gifs and one liners. Liberals have a hard time coming up with coherent arguments so I can't say I'm really surprised.

Are you new to the internet? Only a minority in any forum invest more than 1-2 lines. If you want a high participation rate for lengthy discussion join a debate team.

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

Funny thing is, I Have no idea what Hibachi is arguing for. Hibachi seems like basic ignorant person like most people. One thing i always wandered, why one would even like conservative views. They are so backwards and selfish. I do not care for politics but doing good (sharing, helping etc) seem to be lefties ideals so any decent humang being should lean to left. Well in reality, any decent human being would do the "right" thing. "Right" thing I would just associate with left side of politics.

Anyway. Politics are BS. And political parties are BS. We do not need lefties or righties, we need decent human beings.

I've not seen the Party of European Socialists arguing for communal ownership of the means of production, either. Most of these labels are fairly flexible and denote rough categories at best. But yes, I mean socialist as in 'prefers a private-property system regulated by government', rather than 'prefers a collective-property system regulated by workers' collectives'. That said, there's a fair amount of the latter on GAF too.

Our sosialict-democrats are pretty right aligned. Parties go to direction from their relative position.

Lefties: Better social recurity, Better care for elder, More "honest"(see trough) politics. etc.
Righties: More rights for companies, Cuts to social security, cuts to elders care etc.
Other smells evil and other decent. Why is it so?

 

[kyser73]

I've not seen the Party of European Socialists arguing for communal ownership of the means of production, either. Most of these labels are fairly flexible and denote rough categories at best. But yes, I mean socialist as in 'prefers a private-property system regulated by government', rather than 'prefers a collective-property system regulated by workers' collectives'. That said, there's a fair amount of the latter on GAF too.

You're certainly not wrong there when it come to socialists in France

For me the former of those two choices is social-democracy, but you're right it's an annoyingly flexible label.

 

[kyser73]

The problem (in the US) is that people now are lazy. If a person thinks raising the minimum wage (or having one at all) is a good thing, I'd have to question their understanding of basic economics.

There's a huge shortage (and it's going to get worse) for trade jobs, for instance. Kids can go out and become a welder, electrician, plumber, etc. and start at $30/hour but everybody is too busy running up $100k+ student loan debt in a liberal arts degree then bitch when they can't find a "good" paying job after school. That same person would be making $90/hour as a welder if they, instead, took the time to learn a skilled trade. But being a plumber or electrician isn't as "sexy" or cushy sounding as going to college. Plus it involves too much actual, you know, work.

Flipping burgers and stocking shelves isn't meant to support your family of four. If you want to get out of entry level hell then apply yourself and get a "real" job.

Pretty much how I figured this "discussion" would go. Cute gifs and one liners. Liberals have a hard time coming up with coherent arguments so I can't say I'm really surprised.

PMSL @ 'coherent argument'.

 

[Hibachi]

Are you new to the internet? Only a minority in any forum invest more than 1-2 lines. If you want a high participation rate for lengthy discussion join a debate team.

Nope, though I mostly participate in more....mature? maybe, forums (I'm guessing I'm a generation older than most of GAF). And there we do have good, level headed discussions. I'll refrain from assuming that can be had here. Lesson learned the hard way.

 

[Hibachi]

Funny thing is, I Have no idea what Hibachi is arguing for. Hibachi seems like basic ignorant person like most people. One thing i always wandered, why one would even like conservative views. They are so backwards and selfish. I do not care for politics but doing good (sharing, helping etc) seem to be lefties ideals so any decent humang being should lean to left. Well in reality, any decent human being would do the "right" thing. "Right" thing I would just associate with left side of politics.

Anyway. Politics are BS. And political parties are BS. We do not need lefties or righties, we need decent human beings.

I'm ignorant because you can't follow along? More irony. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as this thread slipped somewhat OT.

But it honestly makes me sad to hear people (I'm assuming, young people) say/think things like that.

 

[phisheep]

Was waiting for this thread to settle down a bit. Guess it won't.

Part of the trouble seems to me to be is it is all about big business v (unionised or non-unionised) workers. I have a small business, and I find it hugely irritating that there's this vast swathe of employment law stuff that I have to comply with that is only there because of this conflict.

Don't get me wrong. Unions did a huge amount of good late 19th/early-mid 20th centuries (been there, seen that - I'm from the mining valleys of South Wales). But also a whole lot of bad in terms of pay differentials/job discrimination/the whole Fleet Street debacle and ending up not so much representing the workers as protecting their own interests.

But also don't get me wrong the other way. Big business needs a damn kick as well. Anyone who is in a marketing department needs sacking unless they have met real customers.

Trouble is small business gets squeezed every which way - in horrendously complicated employment legislation to be complied with (OK for a big firm with a legal department and an HR department, but appalling for a two-person outfit that wants to expand), in the expectations of employees (if I take someone on I expect them to learn the business and benefit from that learning, and that's way better than taking a marketing degree because you learn ALL the damn business here) and if they want to take it on for less than minimum wage why should I have to stop them? I'd have a queue around the block if I even asked for volunteers.

It's not class-based and it's not discriminatory, but I don't expect anyone to make a living wage (yet) by working for me - largely because I don't (yet) make what's called a "living wage" myself. But I live just fine.

Biggest problem I have with the class thing is not wages and not "laziness" but that it is a self-supporting thing. Because the only people you ever meet are people from the same class and you have the same, probably relatively trivial, concerns.

I got two degrees and a postgrad. That's partly pride, partly family expectation, partly socially "the thing to do". But the smartest guy I know is a farmhand, he's way smarter than me.

 

[Oblivion]

And you didn't post links to studies or articles from an economist or even a business leader. You linked to a BLS report that said, "jobs are available", as they always are. There were jobs available the day after Black Friday in 1929.

?

Of course there would be jobs around Black Friday. That's the busiest time of the year for retailers!

 

[Piecake]

Nope, though I mostly participate in more....mature? maybe, forums (I'm guessing I'm a generation older than most of GAF). And there we do have good, level headed discussions. I'll refrain from assuming that can be had here. Lesson learned the hard way.

The problem is that your assertions can be refuted easily with a bit of research. Moreover, instead of arguing with the people who brought up facts, data, and studies, you simply respond to people who attack you so that you can take the moral high ground and feel better about yourself. That way you can frame the discussion in your mind that shows you being all mature (which you arent because insulting people is not mature) while you potray all of your opponents as acting like moronic juveniles. Thats not a good thought process to have

On to your argument

You say that anyone with a basic knowledge of economics would know that the minimum wage is a horrible idea. The problem with that though is that there has been a bunch of economic studies on the actual impact of raising the minimum wage, and those have largely concluded that the negatives are rather insignificant while the positives are fairly significant. Of course, I'd imagine there is a point where a minimum wage would become more negative, but its definitely not 15, and certainly not 10 dollars an hour.

You seem to be coming from the 'common sense' and 'logical' angle of economics. Its just logical that unemployment will increase if minimum wage will increase! Problem is, is that is not born out by actual real life facts

As for your claim that there are a bunch of jobs just waiting for people to take but for a lack of skill. Well, that is also a myth. You can go back and read the articles that I posted, and you should, because they take a critical view of the data you posted and the claims from business owners who say that there is a 'skills gap' You should be wary of those arguments because its in the business owners best interest to say those things

As for laziness, productivity and wealth, well, I think the 3 graphs I posted say it all. We are increasingly more productive, but all that increased wealth is going to the top 5%. I think a far more reasonable explanation for that is that employers have found themselves in a much more powerful positon vis-a-vi workers thanks to the decline of unions, which has enabled them to take, well, basically all of the newly created wealth. Personally, I find that a much more convincing argument than the top 5% are responsible for all of the increased productivity

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

I'm ignorant because you can't follow along? More irony. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as this thread slipped somewhat OT.

But it honestly makes me sad to hear people (I'm assuming, young people) say/think things like that.

No. How you dismissed other peoples posts is what made you seem ignorant. I bet you know lot about your own beliefs. I just did not find any argument from you.
I do associate conservatives with selfishness and lefties with caring (From their general political views). But like i wrote, I do not care for politics as it is mainly BS.

 

[TheSeks]

I have no problem with this line of reasoning.

But this is bad. Having a BA has value.

Why do you have no problem with one but with the other?

Here's a news flash: Jobs aren't as plentiful as they used to be. If a family of four's father/breadwinner/whatever you want to call them needs a job and has to take a job at KFC: Why the fuck wouldn't you give them a livable wage?

Same for the high-school student: Why wouldn't you give them a livable wage they can save so they can get out of their parents place when they graduate? Why is it an issue?

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean others that don't shouldn't at least have a livable wage, you know? "Shit job that leads to better jobs" isn't an excuse for this.

 

[Ashes]

Nearly finished off? The UK car manufacturing industry produced 1.5m vehicles last year, and took a massively disproportionate amount of the R&D cash.

You're correct, so perhaps I should elaborate. The UK was the WORLD'S LARGEST exporter of motor vehicles in the fifties. And most of the profits made now go into overseas giants. Part of our downfall appears in part to be how unions worked over here.

The British car Industry: Our Part in its Downfall, by James Ruppert, goes into more detail.

 

[IISANDERII]

Unionization doesn't necessarily lead to prosperity. It worked great in countries such as Germany but caused no end of trouble in countries such as the UK. Speaking of the car manufacturing industries, one rose to great heights the other nearly finished off.

Not to say I don't agree with the article.

Do you honestly believe that unionization was the cause for the downfall of the British auto industry?

 

[Hibachi]

The problem is that your assertions can be refuted easily with a bit of research. Moreover, instead of arguing with the people who brought up facts, data, and studies, you simply respond to people who attack you so that you can take the moral high ground and feel better about yourself. That way you can frame the discussion in your mind that shows you being all mature (which you arent because insulting people is not mature) while you potray all of your opponents as acting like moronic juveniles. Thats not a good thought process to have

Please point out where I directly insulted people or attacked anyone. Yet you talk about people "attacking" me (I never felt I was being attacked but OK) but I'm the only bad guy. Gotcha. I take the moral high ground because I responded to people "attacking" me, but again, I'm the bad guy (there's that irony again). Gotcha. I think you read way too much into all of that but if that's what you came away with, ok.

Either way, thank you for actually posting a good, thought out reply (minus your first paragraph).

On to your argument

You say that anyone with a basic knowledge of economics would know that the minimum wage is a horrible idea. The problem with that though is that there has been a bunch of economic studies on the actual impact of raising the minimum wage, and those have largely concluded that the negatives are rather insignificant while the positives are fairly significant. Of course, I'd imagine there is a point where a minimum wage would become more negative, but its definitely not 15, and certainly not 10 dollars an hour.

You seem to be coming from the 'common sense' and 'logical' angle of economics. Its just logical that unemployment will increase if minimum wage will increase! Problem is, is that is not born out by actual real life facts

As for your claim that there are a bunch of jobs just waiting for people to take but for a lack of skill. Well, that is also a myth. You can go back and read the articles that I posted, and you should, because they take a critical view of the data you posted and the claims from business owners who say that there is a 'skills gap' You should be wary of those arguments because its in the business owners best interest to say those things

As for laziness, productivity and wealth, well, I think the 3 graphs I posted say it all. We are increasingly more productive, but all that increased wealth is going to the top 5%. I think a far more reasonable explanation for that is that employers have found themselves in a much more powerful positon vis-a-vi workers thanks to the decline of unions, which has enabled them to take, well, basically all of the newly created wealth. Personally, I find that a much more convincing argument than the top 5% are responsible for all of the increased productivity

The problem is you (and everyone else) claim these studies and "facts" as gospel when they're anything but. Here's just 2 studies by economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board, and Mark Schweitzer of the Cleveland Fed showing the negatives of having a higher minimum wage.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/1999/0201.pdf
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA701.pdf

So why are your studies fact but you'll discredit these or any others I bring up? That's why I didn't bother to reply before because it's obvious it wouldn't make a difference to most here.

Same with your claim that the skills gap and laziness is a "myth". I can link to articles and graphs saying the opposite of yours but my feeling (and maybe I'm wrong) is that you'll just instantly dismiss them so round and round we go.

 

[Valnen]

Flipping burgers and stocking shelves isn't meant to support your family of four. If you want to get out of entry level hell then apply yourself and get a "real" job.

There aren't enough real jobs for people that need them. And those jobs should at least support an individual wanting to live on their own. They currently don't. Not even close.

 

[Hibachi]

Why do you have no problem with one but with the other?

Here's a news flash: Jobs aren't as plentiful as they used to be. If a family of four's father/breadwinner/whatever you want to call them needs a job and has to take a job at KFC: Why the fuck wouldn't you give them a livable wage?

But define "livable wage"?

Same for the high-school student: Why wouldn't you give them a livable wage they can save so they can get out of their parents place when they graduate? Why is it an issue?

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean others that don't shouldn't at least have a livable wage, you know? "Shit job that leads to better jobs" isn't an excuse for this.

So do you think a high school student or the workers at KFC should make as much an hour as someone with a skill or degree?

 

[Hibachi]

There aren't enough real jobs for people that need them. And those jobs should at least support an individual wanting to live on their own. They currently don't. Not even close.

You're generalizing. I had my first apartment right out of high school and made $7/hr at Best Buy. My little cousin just moved into his own apartment last year after graduating HS and he's making $9/hr working in a construction yard.

There's a LOT of variables at play, COL being one but your blanket statement is false. Plenty of kids/people do just fine with what they have.

 

[Valnen]

You're generalizing. I had my first apartment right out of high school and made $7/hr at Best Buy. My little cousin just moved into his own apartment last year after graduating HS and he's making $9/hr working in a construction yard.

There's a LOT of variables at play, COL being one but your blanket statement is false. Plenty of kids/people do just fine with what they have.

I'd like to see them do that in California. And regardless, there aren't enough "real" jobs period. Some people, no matter how hard they try, will NEVER get a good paying job simply because those good jobs are in short supply.

 

[Hibachi]

I'd like to see them do that in California.

Read my last paragraph again.

 

[Valnen]

Read my last paragraph again.

"Some people in my place do fine so fuck you" isn't a good argument. You are literally arguing for making the lives of poor people as miserable as possible.

 

[Hibachi]

I'd like to see them do that in California. And regardless, there aren't enough "real" jobs period. Some people, no matter how hard they try, will NEVER get a good paying job simply because those good jobs are in short supply.

I'll disagree with that. The links I posted earlier show there are millions of jobs with no takers. But, that depends I guess on your definition of "good job".

I'd argue there are jobs for those that want them. There's a lack of motivated workers.

 

[Hibachi]

"Some people in my place do fine so fuck you" isn't a good argument. You are literally arguing for making the lives of poor people as miserable as possible.

You're reading what you want to and playing the emotion card again.

 

[teruterubozu]

Working class or middle class?

If this article is about definitions, then the writer shouldn't freely interchange these terms. To many there are different nuances.