Seattle agrees to raise minimum wage to $15
- Thread starter TheyCallMeAzul
- Start date
exactly
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
I'm honestly not sure if I realized things were so incohesive during that period.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Minimum wage jobs are more than McDonalds. The rest of the modern world can do it why can't America?
The rest of the modern world has lower corporate taxes too, are you in favor of that as well?
stepbackj34spud
Top 75 All-Time
I bet the cost of living in Seattle is high as fukk.
When you say this, I want to understand what you mean
do you mean that the population was MADE paranoid about socialism, like reefer madness or do you mean something else?
they are completely unrelatedCould someone explain the relationship between CEO pay and low skill worker pay? and exactly how one affects the other?
Hipsters fighting Mexicans and Canadians in the middle of the street
Type Username Here
Not a new member
The government, business sectors and some of the population were absolutely terrified of a worker rebellion. I'm talking about a 22 year period starting from around 1900. Socialism, Anarchism and Communism was taking hold in a lot of places on the planet and America wasn't an exception. People think of McCarthyism as the pinnacle of domestic anti-Communism and anti-socialism actions but it pales in comparison to the early 1900s.
They were passing laws that made the Patriot Act look timid. People were being thrown in prisons for years simply for giving speeches. Death squads. Framing opposition leaders for crimes and murders. Total propaganda attack in newspapers everyday.
They succeed too. This is probably one of the most glossed over period and events in domestic American History.
All that changed in 1929 though.
America's per capita GDP is over $50K. America can do it why cant the rest of the world
Both points are equally irrelevant/meaningless.The rest of the modern world has lower corporate taxes too, are you in favor of that as well?
you had a point?
i was just mocking ya espousal of 19th century bourgeoisie classical liberalism. And though there's a 1000 and 1 ways to engage with said thinking, my point re: marx was that a) even during early 19th century proprietary capitalism, the supposed era of free market liberalism, the "free market" was based on forcible removal of peasant populations in order to allow for commercial agriculture and to supply industries in the city with a labor.
More broadly though, I think the way you use that line of thinking is doctrinaire and really does violence to the way in which Adam Smith and other Scottish Enlightenment thinkers employed it in the 18th century. If you read any of their writings, you can see they are first and foremost concerned with justice and plenty, and see the liberal individual making free choices in the plebiscite of the marketplace as a good thing only in so far as it contributes to this. Your usage, however, always turns on the view that if the market involves "coercion," it ain't jiggy. To put this more bluntly, in the hands of Smith & Co, liberalism is a theory of society and morality very good at engaging with mercantilist theories that allowed wealth to be concentrated in a few hands; in yours it becomes an inflexible, irrational theory of the individual -- an individual who should be free to does whatever he or she pleases regardless of the effects on society.
I might see the use of your classical liberalism if we could indeed turn back the clock to an age of proprietary capitalism. But the truth of the matter is that trusts and corporations -- rather than an impure aberration and deviation from the free market -- were by and large the product of the very limits of the free market. e.g. by and large trusts and corporations formed because it was very difficult for a single person to fund a railroad and even more difficult for just one person to manage extensive railroad lines.
All that to say, that when you espouse the language of classical liberalism in today's day and age, more than helping bring down corporations and their rampant coercion, you really just reify their position, because they can easily argue that they are individual entities that should also be entitled to market freedoms and dum Americans will largely not their head in agreement.
well said :zfg:If the raised the wages at the floor level, eventually wages at all levels would rise. But no, let's keep everyone poor so I can feel good on the internet and save 17 cents on terrible fast food.
CEO gets $50 million dollar severance package for running company into the ground - "Well, he went to college so he deserves it obviously. Free market."
$10 an hour laborers move a box into the wrong aisle - "What horrible people, they don't deserve to make that much money."
It will require $20 per hour soon if this goes through in Seattle.
The rest of the modern world has lower corporate taxes too, are you in favor of that as well?
Maybe if they actually paid the tax to begin with.