🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@admitsWrongIfProven

No one is inviting anyone to the illuminati. It was started by a Freemasonry lodge a long time ago, but it stop existing a while ago too. It never became the large organization people claim. Freemasonry has always decryed the illuminati and never supported it. It is against our internal rules to give eachother perks like that.

@catsalad @jerry

@Mr_Teatime

No worries, disengaging, and recognizing your own tendency to get triggered and thus perhaps not having a fruitful conversation is a very matrue choice, and I respect that. Should you feel you want to understand my stance at some point you are always welcome back.

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@Mr_Teatime

In dickens time did they have free education and generous welfare system? Stop with the nonsense rhetoric, **no one** here is suggesting we abolish worker protections and minimum wage and call it a day, so the fact you keep harping ont he same loaded language is getting tiring.

What I am proposing is a system of free education and job training **to the extreme** and a good welfare system to help people during the transition. Nothing remotely dickens about it, its about the responsbility being ont he government to create healthy economies and to be the "charity" and not companies, which is how it should be.

As to your question, I have lived in many places from egypt to the USA to the Netherlands, in fact I've lived in most major countries at this point, or at least most regions (europe, asia, americas, etc).I am not against taxes, as I stated before I'm against wasted taxes.. wasting it on minimum wage when it makes the problem **worse** rather than investing it in welfare and education that actually fixes the problem. In the netherlands they actually use their taxes for actual good, it covers (partly) education, it provides decent welfare systems, and that money is spent well on infrastructure and social works. Compare that to the USA where most of the taxes are completely wasted, I dont mind spending the extra money if i see those benefits actually being realized. Now they still waste a **lot**, and their system of minimum wage isnt helping. But overall they arent wasting all of our money on military or walls, so by in large it is spent on tangible things, more so than in the USA at least.

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@Mr_Teatime

> "taxes are immoral and companies must behave like psychopaths"

Considering no one said anything of the sort I would imagine it would bother you, figments of your imagination tend to do that.

When I argued education should be free and cover all levels of education and other forms of skill training (trade schools, educational degrees from bachnlors to PhD, etc) what part of that assumes I am against taxes when surely taxes would need to pay for this.

What I am arguing is instead of acting like true psychopaths and expecting companies to just be so altruistic they just give people money to live off of that is more than they actually earn for the company, that we actually make these people marketable so companies dont **need** to be charities, that they will pay them a living wage because the skills they bring the company is actually worth that living wage. Likewise reducing the number of people in low-paid jobs, thus decreasing the supply and likewise raising their wages out of need.

All of this would still need to be payed for with taxes, but instead of just handing out free money and causing actual **proven** harm to the very people you want to help Im suggesting actually helping them. No one said taxes are immoral, but **wasting** taxes to actually harm the people you are trying to help is.

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@aiono

Paying a wage that is more than the market value for something is absolutely charity, almost by definition.

@Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@aiono

What exactly were you search terms that lead to this 40 year old paper? What made you think this 40 year old paper was a more credible source than the much more modernly sourced data I provided?

Do you know what its called when you search for something to agree with your biases and provide the first paper that seems to do so? Does that sound like someone trying to persue the truth, or trying to argue their agenda?

@Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@Mr_Teatime

> afaict abolishing MW will likely lead to most people who are currently on MW getting pay cuts. With some delay, it will then lead to some currently-unemployed people finding work at even lower wages.

No, because those people are paid that minimum wage because their skills make them give as much back as value. So no it doesnt work that way, nor is there any evidence to suggest it does.

> How many "some" are, I can't tell, so I don't think there's a clear argument either way.

The chart I provided shows exactly what that number is. A 50% increase in minimum wage would result in 50% increase in the number of people with no high school diploma being unemployed. You dont need to guess you have a peer reviewed study telling you. The relationship is linear, so when you double minimum wage you double the number of people who dont have a job (among those without diplomas). For those with a high school diploma the increase is only slightly smaller.

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@Mr_Teatime

I never said it was certain death for **everyone** so no it isnt what I just did. It is certain death for those effected however, which is a huge portion.

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@aiono

You absolutely could, with the poor and middle class paying significantly more taxes, and with pay from highly skilled work a fraction (about 1/3 in my case as a technical expert) of what it is in the USA. I lived in the netherlands and germany as a middle class individual and with my pay being cut to 1/3 what it would be in the USA that is clearly **not** a good solution as far as I'm concerned. In fact the reason im agains the german system is because I lived it as a middle class individual and know just how horrific it is. Solves one problem, causes 10 others.

OR what you can do is exactly what I suggested, instead of giving people free money or relying on companies to be charities you can simply invest in making your populace highly skilled and then only supplement with welfare the few people who are incapable and actually solve the problem.

@Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@Mr_Teatime

The graph shows that people loose their jobs and starve, some may keep their job. When many, and not all, suffer and starve it is still a defacto harmful policy, full stop. Arguing in absolutes are never useful.

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@aiono

Abolishing MW leads to the poorest people most in need with work and the ability to feed themselves more so than with MW in existent. It provides real, material, positive results, thats why.

That fact that it is only a **step** in the right direction and an improvement but not a full solution is a horrible reason not to promote this.

@Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@Mr_Teatime

> I know that too-low minimum wage can serve as an excuse to pay people less than they actually need. I also think that not having minimum wage can get some people taken advantage of (if you're desparate enough you'll work for any amount).

This is certainly true, if you have no minimum wage some people will be paid far below a living wage. But its important to understand that it isnt a companies obligation to pay you a living wage, its the governments responsibility to keep the markets and populace in a state where people earn a living wage. More importantly it isnt even about "who is responsible" so much as it is about what the reality is. As we covered when you raise minimum wage these people dont just get paid more, they just become unhirable. Have you solved anything by taking the people who would not earn a living wage and only earn, lets say, a nickle an hour, and now just forcing them to be fired and have no job at all? A nickle an hour is better than 0. Thats the problem, you arent actually making anyone get a living wage, your just making sure the people who cant get a living wage now have no job at all, how is that a step in the right direction?

> So some of those extra employed with low MW are probably flippin' miserable.

Less miserable than they would be without a job at all.

> Hypothesis: removing MW *while also providing means to meet basic needs for everyone* should make for a better solution. Removing MW *with no further support* may well create a (not so) new type of slavery.

We obviously agree the only real answer is ensuring people have good welfare before removing MW. However removing MW with no further support means now you have people who make 0 making **something**, sure its a shitty something, but something means they eat, nothing means they die. It may not be a great scenario but it is absolutely better than having minimum wage, or do you think just letting those people make 0 and starving to death is osmehow an improvement over a nickle an hour wage?

@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor

@rootfake

> didn't mean you believed in that part, you obviously didn't

Then its not the exact thing im espousing is it?

> the modern iteration is about believing, effectively, that hard work brings good fortune

Yet my stance is, again, the exact opposite of the mentality you keep trying mental gymnastics to fit me into.

Low-skilled workers are the hardest workers there are, they get paid very little, work huge number of hours, and usually do very hard work. You really think I'm claiming a mathematician, or an engineer is a harder worker than someone who cleans hotel rooms? Nothing I ever said had **anything** to do with hard work and in fact my stance, when considered with common sense, is the obvious, that people shoulder **not** work as hard as they do, they should work smarter (education) not harder. What matters is the value of your skill, not how much energy you put into your job.

You are trying so desperately to fit me into a mold so you can apply your same talking points you are so comfortable using, and its not working. If you want to have a productive conversation your going to have to stop trying to apply the same template you use when arguing this with any generic person and actually start addressing what I've actually said, and recognize my actual standpoint.

@aiono @MikeDunnAuthor

@rootfake

I never claimed minimum wage jobs dont need to be done. No one is claiming those jobs should be abolished. The problem is when you have far too many low-skilled people then the laws of supply and demand dictate low-wage, everyone wants to to do it. When you have high skilled people most of them wont want to do low-skilled work, so the demand for doing the work goes down, and thus the pay goes up.

No one is suggesting **everyone** needs to be "upskill", only the people who are capable of it until you drive the wages up enough to not need to "upskill" people further.

No one is suggesting all people need to be coders and plumbers and engineers, just that more people need to be.

@aiono @MikeDunnAuthor