J.C.MacSwell

If you had pointed out in the physics section that a vehicle had a speed at which it could not maintain traction around a curve, I doubt I would have badgered you to tell me what specific speed without being willing to describe the curve and the coefficient of friction of the the road....despite you pointing out that the speed is not the same for every road curve in America... and even while agreeing with the statement.....and even if what I felt were a despicable group from Canada often claimed cars were safe at any speed... ...but maybe that's just me There's a point at which a deal cannot rationally take place...it has to work for both parties...in this case between employer and employee. Often that would be true. On topic can the difference be made up by a better mix of UBI with perhaps lower minimum wage, or adjusted for economic condition of each region? My contention being that UBI would often help poorer regions more so than restricting deals between employees than employers.

Since you're struggling with this and despite the fact you have refused to answer the where and defined "widespread job loss": I'll still answer: I'm confident a minimum wage of $20/hr, in terms of 2020 USD (so don't claim inflation will mitigate even part of it), would trigger widespread job loss, right across a substantial part of the US, and trigger widespread job losses. My estimate would be across a majority of the US. (I can provide a link if necessary, where yes, JC MacSwell makes that estimate) Any of that making anyone think $15 must be anywhere close to universally optimal with me then (even for workers currently making less)...I don't know what to tell them. You're looking at substantial job losses and/or reduced hours, and/or retreat for many to an underground economy. But you meant well...and those conservatives are dishonest.

As I've tried to convey....it depends on where, and what factors you are willing to put in place to mitigate the negatives. Fortunately I don't carry around that baggage. I realize it's Politics 101 for much of the US....for good reasons and bad, but most of the World hasn't taken the course. So perhaps read what I'm saying rather than reading into it.

FFS, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT OR NOT? This should be a simple concept...except: ...might be a conservative talking point....HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!

State where, and define "widespread job loss", and I'll hazard a guesstimate. Then we can look at it, scratch our heads, or point and laugh at it, because it's not actually needed. I already stated this: I'll be happy to attempt to support that $15USD would be detrimental in many areas, without other significant changes to mitigate the damage.

I doubt it. That doesn't mean it will have no effect. You can't keep adding them on forever, inflation and economic growth notwithstanding.

You wrote and quoted: What’s the evidence that a minimum wage increase would “quickly kill jobs”? Which was my point. I made no other assertion.... Why should I pick a number? I've clearly argued it shouldn't be the same everywhere. I simply made a point, which you seem to agree with...yet somehow have a problem with the way I made it. It did in some areas, and again, because the increases were probably reasonable, the net effect may have been positive.

You mentioned $200 an hour. Why? What evidence do you have that it would have a detrimental effect? Maybe because it is obvious at that level? Is it not equally obvious that a $15USD minimum wage would be detrimental in some countries By definition....unless you believe no level of minimum wage could have that effect. Again, you mentioned $200, so you get it, do you not? Sorry. I've been busy explaining stuff you already understand. Simply because you are attacking what you think is my "rhetoric" rather than questioning my actual argument. "In the end, minimum wage hikes rob young people of the opportunity to gain work experience that helps them develop basic skills and earn higher levels of income. Indeed, research finds that earning the minimum wage is often a stepping stone to higher paid work. But focusing solely on the employment numbers misses other negative effects from minimum wage hikes. Employers also respond by cutting back on hours, providing less on-the-job training, and giving employment priority to the most productive workers." https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/minimum-wage-increases-wont-solve-poverty#:~:text=Poverty can increase because minimum,young workers in the family.&text=While the more productive workers,result of fewer employment opportunities. Little downside. I wonder where that "little downside" occurs? Obviously not in some affluent areas, where McDonalds can just raise there prices as their competitors all do the same and deal with the same increases. Maybe McDonalds does get effected at the margins, and doesn't open that extra store in a less affluent area (but what evidence of that get's measured?) So evidence of small minimum wage increases, which typically are adjustments to it being set too low, can be shown to have a net benefit (more positive than negative)...so bold increases must be even better?...what evidence is there for it? Where have bold increases been tried? What is a bold increase? To me it is dictating $15USD an hour...right across the board...even if it's beneficial in some areas, and it would only represent a small increase in some areas. Put it in place where an employee and employer can only deal with a lesser amount and you owe someone a job, and maybe someone a business....but you meant well so let them deal with that. Often they have to go "underground" at least to some extent. https://www.dw.com/en/minimum-wage-fuels-germanys-underground-economy/a-18231218 Experts warn of a resurgence in Germany's underground economy after years of contraction. A new study shows that the introduction of a nationwide minimum wage is driving more workers into the shadows.

For the same reason poorer countries shouldn't set a minimum wage at 15 USD equivalent, which would quickly kill jobs. Obviously making marginal increases has a slower effect (good or bad, depending on whether it is already set too high or too low) but is it not clear that the optimum minimum wage is not one size fits all? Of course it isn't. I defined this particular "high enough" as "few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs." The point is there is a need to strike a balance, and that the factors that effect it are not the same everywhere. They are often doing most or a substantial part of the work. Do you not suspect higher minimum wages will effect their earnings and often necessitate working even longer hours, while reducing those of their employees? That's assuming they stay in business.

Sorry to hear that Beecee. My mother in law still lives on her own, despite a few falls, at 89, and I've supported her decision to do so. She's said she's determined to make it to 90. Tonight she was in especially good spirits and we joked about her making it to the point of technology having her live forever. But the risks of living alone are understood.

...and they create far more share of jobs than the average person.

They would hurt the poor states and poor regions the most, all things being the same otherwise. Compare with a universal basic income (maybe less than the $1,000/month advocated by Yang, but substantial), and lesser minimum wages set by States and adjusted for regions. Also consider exempting minimum wages for smaller and/or start up enterprises. I realize this is off topic and if a mod could split it off that would be appreciated. Thanks. Raise the wages high enough and few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs. (so where is the balance...and is it country wide...or even state wide?) Of course they would. If they are paying minimum wage it's a direct increased cost. How much of that increase cost is recouped in their small market share of potential spending, with the large mops of large consumer corporations ready to soak it up? Why are they obligated to compete economically, as if they are on a level playing field, with an artificially high and arbitrary cost added to them, simply because a minimum wage is required to, quite plausibly, help offset the fact that some large business interests have an unfair advantage over many workers. Many people work for less than minimum wage and legally. They're called small business owners.

Hi Commander This is essentially your version of social democracy. Social democracies can work very well, or very poorly, depending on a number of factors including how well you balance strike balances and get general acceptance. Just comments: Poverty levels can only be arbitrarily defined. You have to balance what the state can or is willing to afford to eliminate and what those in poverty want and need. Taken literally, here you are deciding what is best for some people, whether they like it or not. I might not want everything in your basic needs package, but rather have something extra to it. Literally again, it's 100% clawback of welfare (you don't allow me anything extra until I can fully pay for all my basic needs). Your safety net serves somewhat as a trap. How? And who decides what for individuals in the welfare state, whether they are struggling to get out...or satisfied to be there?

It seems relevant to me. Why don't you report it? The fact that you created the thread doesn't entitle you to moderate it.

Stop listening to my wife, dammit!

We were all told there was plenty of evidence last time. Many many times. This time we could observe it directly, with much much less room for a favourable interpretation for Trump.

How is it different from social democracy other than even more free stuff and therefore less incentive and with it less productivity, so more wealth redistribution required but with less to distribute, leading toward less personal freedoms? Am I allowed to be a World Champion couch potato, on the couch of my choosing, if that's my desire?

I don't want to dump on Phi in particular, but much of this comes from what I would consider "political bigotry". You've espoused some conservative views, and even though you believe them to be best for all of humanity, regardless of race, creed, national origin etc, you are assumed to believe in the worst of "conservatism" as well. (again of course Phi does not go any where near that far, but he certainly didn't hold back on his opinions)

Looking at the first photo my first thought was how dark and foreboding it must be underneath those panels, but looking at the second it looks nicely shaded but still has a good bit of light. They do look like they might need a fair bit of water to maintain in dusty areas though, looking at a further photo. Blowing them off first might reduce the amount of water required, though they'd no doubt know that.

This seems awfully high. Belief in enough actual voter fraud? Or enough due not just to some fraud plus a laundry list of complaints (media bias, Hunter Biden story suppressed, States not following there own laws, too much online voting access etc etc) Because I'm having trouble believing the conservative media falls vastly into the remaining 26%. Even Fox News acknowledges there wasn't enough fraud to throw the election. What was the question asked in these surveys?

Anti trust laws have been around for 100+years, because this did not always work. I will agree that it (your "old way") Is certainly preferred in a fair and open market, when that reasonably exists. The media platforms such as facebook and twitter should be subject to the same laws as other media, at least to the degree they edit their content. Why give them a pass?

Is this gay wedding cake promising to show up at the wedding, but won't because it hopes there might be a free for all brawl?

Then why protect them from liability? Why should some billionaire, or a few of them, get to limit your speech but then not be at all responsible for the speech they accept and disperse? If you go into Walmart they can't kick you out for the views you hold, and tell you to go find another store. If they want to make the rules and interpret them they need to be able to be held accountable.

Of course as you know Canada does not govern by any measure of popular vote. With 3 major parties, in theory we could have the party with the third most votes take the majority of seats, more than the first two together. (but it's much more likely to be a minority government when it's that range of close, with the party with the most seats forming government and requiring the support of one of the other 2)

In Nova Scotia I think we have done reasonably well at those....plus for Covid have benefitted from geographical isolation and distance as well. So far very few cases where tracking wasn't fairly immediate. Two members (out of 4) in our immediate family had tests that came back negative within 24 hours. But it doesn't take much to have things turn south (pardon the expression 😉)