Donald Trump for president?

[jamo]

49 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

That I certainly agree with.  That's why so many of those jobs are only offered as part time and minimum wage, and were traditionally held by students, or sometimes by a stay at home mom who could only work part time when the kids were in school.  For adults who want to turn those jobs into something they aren't just so they can skate by is simply wrong.

What do you suggest that a 30-year-old living on a minimum wage job do?

10 minutes ago, Psyber said:

I don't get the minimum wage issue here. Why should anyone be rewarded for doing the bare minimum? 

By that logic, why have a minimum wage at all? There's nothing sacrosanct about the $7.50 it's at now.

[Psyber]

Just now, jamo said:

What do you suggest that a 30-year-old living on a minimum wage job do?

By that logic, why have a minimum wage at all? There's nothing sacrosanct about the $7.50 it's at now.

I agree. The market should set the price for labor.

[Fourputt]

2 minutes ago, jamo said:

What do you suggest that a 30-year-old living on a minimum wage job do?

Manage his money very carefully until he can get a real job.

[Psyber]

If you're 30 years old and you're making minimum wage something went really wrong. You most likely earned a pretty shitty life by not spending the last 12 years developing a marketable skill or your intelligence is too low to ever have much a life here in America. Hopefully said 30 year old has parents to live with while he sorts this out or finds someone to split some expenses with.

[jamo]

5 minutes ago, Psyber said:

I agree. The market should set the price for labor.

Well then just say that.

3 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Manage his money very carefully until he can get a real job.

And how does someone, presumably at that age unskilled, without much training, and maybe a kid or two, do that, and then find a higher-paying job on top of it? If you're making no money, it's hard to take, say, community college classes, when you (a) probably can't afford them, and (b) could be making money using that time working. Then even if you do get the degree, you're competing against all the other underemployed people.

I don't have or claim to know the answer, just asking questions.

[Elmer]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

As for Trump, if what he says is true he's going to try to bring manufacturing back to the United States by making it harder for businesses to outsource it overseas.  Manufacturing jobs do warrant $15 per hour, so if you want to make a living wage then you want a POTUS that will make it a little harder for businesses to outsource manufacturing to China, India and Mexico.  Yes, costs of some products will go up, but overall we'll be a healthier country will less dependents and free loaders.

In order to bring business back he is going to have to entice them with tax breaks and promises of making more of a profit.

Many manufacturing has moved over seas because the simply can pay employees less than they would here. The business does not have to pay health insurance, disability, UI, taxes and so on. They can have a factory filled with uneducated, unskilled labor working for a bare minimum of a wage.

What would make ABC corp leave China/India/Africa to put a plant in nowhereville ND, or Backwoods Kansas, than have to pay a machinist or laborer $15 an hour?
Especially when have to take in raw materials which are being shipped in from China, anyway.
 

Keeping companies from shipping overseas is a great sound bite, but how do you keep them here, if not for tax breaks?
Tariffs have historically caused issues.
We are after all a capitalist society and the Board of ABC Corp should be able to seek better profits for their share holders.

Lastly regarding minimum wage. It was never intended to be a living wage. However these days there are more workers than open positions. Therefore some people have to take what ever job is available until they can find a better one. Like it or not, not ever person has gone to college or trade school and is capable of performing any job. Therefore there are those who will likely remain in the service industry. So should these people be pushed working 3 minimum wage jobs?
If we raise minimum wage maybe a more people can get off of public assistance and food stamps. We could start paying Privates in the military more, and get them (with family's) off public assistance. After all public assistance is not just people in the ghetto!

But if trump is going to entice business, why cant he also help those less fortunate.
I simply dont see it, he is too much of an ego maniac!

[Dave2512]

With automation getting more sophisticated every day not sure losing jobs to other countries is the concern it once was. Unless it's a call center or something.

 

[Braivo]

1 minute ago, Elmer said:

I simply dont see it, he is too much of an ego maniac!

He may have a big ego, but I don't understand how this precludes him from being able to make positive changes. In fact, it is likely to help as he would not want to fail as President. He does not want to let the American people down, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents ever. You don't do that by alienating the middle-class, you do that by reviving it. 

Trump is not afraid to take on big corporations and the special interests like the Koch brothers. Those guys control more than any of us realize, and it takes someone just as big to take them down. Sanders, etc. will just get crushed by the special interest groups. It takes a lion to fight a lion. We're going to have to get used to his abrasive style, it will come in handy later on.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, jamo said:

By that logic, why have a minimum wage at all? There's nothing sacrosanct about the $7.50 it's at now.

I think in the end some people are desperate enough to take a job that might be like $2.50 an hour. Does that make it right to even offer a position at $2.50 because they can? I could easily say that's taking advantage of someones misfortune. 

I do think wages at some level should be tied to cost of living for the area. $7.50 has much more buying power in Ohio than in NYC. Maybe tying it inflation as well. 

If price of basic good, housing, vehicles, ect... go up by 2-3% a year and minimum wage doesn't. It just means more and more people are losing buying power on things they wouldn't have to worry about. Over a 5 year period they just lost 10% of their buying power. They have to buy 10% less food than before. 

I think that issue might be more of the Governments involvement in controlling inflation. Maybe the 3% per year increase has been an unforeseen issue. A lot wages have been tied with a step increase by inflation. Minimum wage hasn't. 

[Braivo]

40 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I do think wages at some level should be tied to cost of living for the area. $7.50 has much more buying power in Ohio than in NYC. Maybe tying it inflation as well. 

This is socialism. A failed experiment many times over. 

[Fourputt]

42 minutes ago, jamo said:

Well then just say that.

And how does someone, presumably at that age unskilled, without much training, and maybe a kid or two, do that, and then find a higher-paying job on top of it? If you're making no money, it's hard to take, say, community college classes, when you (a) probably can't afford them, and (b) could be making money using that time working. Then even if you do get the degree, you're competing against all the other underemployed people.

I don't have or claim to know the answer, just asking questions.

By the time he's 30 years old he should have some idea of where he's headed in life.  

By that age I'd failed one year in college (all party and no study), done 2 years in the Army, nearly starved doing pick up jobs around Montana just to keep food on my table, and I wasn't that picky about the food - times when I had a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.  Then lit out for Colorado, took a job sweeping the floor and cleaning out machines in a machine shop, worked up to operating a radial drill, went through a 4 year apprenticeship and had a solid steady trade for life.  All by the time I was 30.  

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, jamo said:

Well then just say that.

And how does someone, presumably at that age unskilled, without much training, and maybe a kid or two, do that, and then find a higher-paying job on top of it? If you're making no money, it's hard to take, say, community college classes, when you (a) probably can't afford them, and (b) could be making money using that time working. Then even if you do get the degree, you're competing against all the other underemployed people.

I don't have or claim to know the answer, just asking questions.

The right answer imo isn't to jack up the minimum wage so they can make more money for doing the same menial job.  The person dug themselves a big hole by making bad life choices now they have to make up for the lost time and work their way out of it.

I'd suggest they sign up with the military or try to pass a civil service test.

51 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

By the time he's 30 years old he should have some idea of where he's headed in life.  

By that age I'd failed one year in college (all party and no study), done 2 years in the Army, nearly starved doing pick up jobs around Montana just to keep food on my table, and I wasn't that picky about the food - times when I had a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.  Then lit out for Colorado, took a job sweeping the floor and cleaning out machines in a machine shop, worked up to operating a radial drill, went through a 4 year apprenticeship and had a solid steady trade for life.  All by the time I was 30.

Exactly, all the entitlement and participation trophy nonsense has created a lot of these individuals.  Instead of being angry with themselves they blame the wealthy and others for the tough life they have.

[Dave2512]

I think the hypothetical 30 yr old bust out that hasn't made it past minimum wage is a fairly uncommon occurrence in reality. Even fast food pays better than that. Probably discussing a person that doesn't exist.

[phillyk]

I wonder how much Trump would golf if he's POTUS? 

[GolfLug]

Just now, phillyk said:

I wonder how much Trump would golf if he's POTUS? 

Plenty, as he/they/any POTUS should on their personal time.

[boogielicious]

14 hours ago, Braivo said:

This is socialism. A failed experiment many times over. 

And yet you live in a country that has many, many socialist functions and are probably fine with them all paid for by the people and run by the government at different levels. Your tax dollars pay for these entities collectively. Pure socialist states tend to transform into dictatorships or authoritarianism like Cuba, Venezuela and the USSR. This happens when profitable private industries are taken over by the government like oil companies and manufacturing. Then greed takes over and so called elected officials desire to always be in control. I agree that is a failed model because it devolves into corruption and greed is king.

But having our military, police, fire protection, courts, infrastructure, ports and other key sectors paid for and controlled by all of us collectively through a representative government is a model we have used successfully for a long time.

Early on, our military was not paid for by the Federal Government. In the War of 1812, our military were militias sent by individual states. It was not really effective either especially against Canadian forces. The Mexican American War, where the illegal immigrants were us when we took Texas from Santa Anna, was a mostly volunteer affair.

We changed our approach after that making the defense of the nation a Federal responsibility. The same with police and fire. They all evolved into community, state and federally funded organizations that we pay for collectively. Where would we be now without local and state police and the FBI, ATF, Border control, TSA, immigration? We the people demanded that these be created.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either. Do you want to live in a country were the police, military and justice system are owned by the rich? We kind of revolted against that in 1775. It is called a Monarchy. Russia has moved away from the socialist model into a much more greed fueled oligarchy, also a bad model.

We live in a fantastic country that is a balance between different ways of governing. It is the longest single government form unchanged in the world, a Federalist Republic. Going strong for 240 years. It baffles me why other democracies don't use our model.

We have created an accomplished incredible things with this model and should really be trying to fine tune it. But right now, our politicians running for office want everyone to be angry to the point of violence. No one thinks straight when they are angry. No one. When you're scared, anxious, excited, you can focus. But when you are flaming angry, you lose all sense of control. 

I'm not going to fall for the angry tactic and the emotionally charges sound bites with no substance. I want to see detailed plans and proposals with actual calculations. And I want it on my desk by Monday morning. 

Don't vote with anger. This country is too special to let the angry people (on both sides) control things.

[jbishop15]

19 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

And yet you live in a country that has many, many socialist functions and are probably fine with them all paid for by the people and run by the government at different levels. Your tax dollars pay for these entities collectively. Pure socialist states tend to transform into dictatorships or authoritarianism like Cuba, Venezuela and the USSR. This happens when profitable private industries are taken over by the government like oil companies and manufacturing. Then greed takes over and so called elected officials desire to always be in control. I agree that is a failed model because it devolves into corruption and greed is king.

But having our military, police, fire protection, courts, infrastructure, ports and other key sectors paid for and controlled by all of us collectively through a representative government is a model we have used successfully for a long time.

Early on, our military was not paid for by the Federal Government. In the War of 1812, our military were militias sent by individual states. It was not really effective either especially against Canadian forces. The Mexican American War, where the illegal immigrants were us when we took Texas from Santa Anna, was a mostly volunteer affair.

We changed our approach after that making the defense of the nation a Federal responsibility. The same with police and fire. They all evolved into community, state and federally funded organizations that we pay for collectively. Where would we be now without local and state police and the FBI, ATF, Border control, TSA, immigration? We the people demanded that these be created.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either. Do you want to live in a country were the police, military and justice system are owned by the rich? We kind of revolted against that in 1775. It is called a Monarchy. Russia has moved away from the socialist model into a much more greed fueled oligarchy, also a bad model.

We live in a fantastic country that is a balance between different ways of governing. It is the longest single government form unchanged in the world, a Federalist Republic. Going strong for 240 years. It baffles me why other democracies don't use our model.

We have created an accomplished incredible things with this model and should really be trying to fine tune it. But right now, our politicians running for office want everyone to be angry to the point of violence. No one thinks straight when they are angry. No one. When you're scared, anxious, excited, you can focus. But when you are flaming angry, you lose all sense of control. 

I'm not going to fall for the angry tactic and the emotionally charges sound bites with no substance. I want to see detailed plans and proposals with actual calculations. And I want it on my desk by Monday morning. 

Don't vote with anger. This country is too special to let the angry people (on both sides) control things.

Yup. One of the things about the successful version of democratic socialism is the use of very open free trade. Democratic socialism is not communism, whose fault lies with the fact that it requires perfect participation from it's members; democratic socialism is better imagined as a muzzle, which stops capitalism from eating itself through income inequality and other things. 

[saevel25]

23 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Pure socialist states tend to transform into dictatorships or authoritarianism like Cuba, Venezuela and the USSR. 

Even our Representative democracy is much more on the side of authoritarianism. 

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

Based on what the candidates have said during the primaries. 

The only non-Authoritarian is Sanders. By US Standards he's very left wing, though he's actually close to being a centralist in the true sense of what it means to be a socialist versus the complete opposite. 

28 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

We have created an accomplished incredible things with this model and should really be trying to fine tune it. But right now, our politicians running for office want everyone to be angry to the point of violence. No one thinks straight when they are angry. No one. When you're scared, anxious, excited, you can focus. But when you are flaming angry, you lose all sense of control. 

I'm not going to fall for the angry tactic and the emotionally charges sound bites with no substance. I want to see detailed plans and proposals with actual calculations. And I want it on my desk by Monday morning. 

Don't vote with anger. This country is too special to let the angry people (on both sides) control things.

Well said! 

8 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

Yup. One of the things about the successful version of democratic socialism is the use of very open free trade. Democratic socialism is not communism, whose fault lies with the fact that it requires perfect participation from it's members; democratic socialism is better imagined as a muzzle, which stops capitalism from eating itself through income inequality and other things. 

I still think that large social programs are not the answer. I do agree that pure capitalism is not the answer. Human beings are just not that wise to run free reign. I do not think taxation is a viable option as a muzzle. I think more creative measures can be done to secure income equality than just playing Robin Hood with the top 1%.