"The problem with raising the minimum wage is that everyone else's salaries above $15 go down. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to magically create more money. Prices will rise, and it is basically a big set of inflation."

You're only half right here, Benjamin. Prices on all commodities will raise and inflation would be near runaway, but anyone above $15.00 would also get raises. Let's use the workplace that I am at right now:

Now:
entry level 9.00
specialized 9.50
supervisor 10.50
asst. mgr 15.00
gen mgr 45k/year ish

after min wage is raised to 15
entry level 15.00
specialized 15.50
supervisor 16.50
asst mgr 21.00
gen mgr 60k/year ish

That's one thing people who do the math on costs of minimum wage fail to take into account. If you move the floor up, you also move the whole ladder that's on the floor up as well. You can't just add up the increased costs of the base wages. You have to add up the costs of EVERYONES wages increasing.

And I also completely agree with you, Eklipse. Trump would be an awful president, but we have a history of surviving awful presidents without too much fuss. It would be unfortunate, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. (Really, I don't see how it could be much worse than it is now...)

^What's wrong with a Nobel Peace Prize winner as president?

@Economics, m. wage etc.
It is complicated, and considering economics disagree on fundamental concept no one really knows what is going on. (People definitely THINK they know, through)

Personally, I believe that minimum wage should be capable of AT LEAST support a family. Hardly the case in US now.

I love (and hate) how Americans have given up the debate if a federal minimum wage is even constitutional?

Every American before Goldwater (essentially every anti-New Dealer) would have said no. We've gone from a country that outright shunned socialism to accepting the merits of some socialist policies to wanting socialist policies. Sad state of history. I say what happened to rugged individualism?

911 happened

I'm pretty sure rugged individualism has nothing to do with 9/11 and besides it was more than dead before that.

TBest he doesn't deserve any peace prize, and everyone knows it.

Because world war 2 happened

Because viewpoints change. Social democracy and social liberalism are largely post-WWII phenomena.

Just like very few people would've said that democracy is an appropriate form of government prior to the late Enlightenment, very few people now would argue that a federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. In the end, that issue's left to the SCOTUS (and even they have been known to reinterpret the constitution from time to time- we all remember Dred Scott).

Times and ideologies change. If you think a line of argument is worthwhile, you could simply pursue it rather than lamenting its unpopularity.

I understand that of course. But there's also something to be said for a society that changes its ideals, values, form of government, and economic system too nonchalantly. All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order. America is an empire and it will collapse because we've been too eager to substitute our values for european ones or for ones that seemed popular. Change is good in many respects (of course civil rights and the post-civil war amendments come to mind), but whole systematic changes in the way of governance are detrimental, which is why a supermajority of Americans feel their country is headed down the wrong path. We are so polarized because there is not even a semblance of a unity of values or culture or politics (and that's a very new phenomenon).

this forum should be over. Trump got disqualified.

I think we should abolish the economic side of gov't, and just have economists run it using Keynesian economics.

except we've been post-Keynesian for a good few decades at this stage... economic theories also get replaced by better ones

Bush had (almost) his entire party behind him and solid control over most the government. Donald Trump is hated by his fellow Republicans and would have little influence outside the executive branch.

I don't know much about the next American presidential election (and neither should you - it's way away), but there's nothing some benefactors' support, long knives, and conviction can do. Are you really even bringing up branches? I am dictator, and my branches are my arms - they don't have sovereign thoughts.

I understand that of course. But there's also something to be said for a society that changes its ideals, values, form of government, and economic system too nonchalantly. All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order. America is an empire and it will collapse because we've been too eager to substitute our values for european ones or for ones that seemed popular. Change is good in many respects (of course civil rights and the post-civil war amendments come to mind), but whole systematic changes in the way of governance are detrimental, which is why a supermajority of Americans feel their country is headed down the wrong path. We are so polarized because there is not even a semblance of a unity of values or culture or politics (and that's a very new phenomenon).

This whole thing is junk, but in particular:

America is an empire and it will collapse because we've been too eager to substitute our values for european ones or for ones that seemed popular.

America was fully founded on European British faff thinker values. America is geographically not European, but culturally is.

whole systematic changes in the way of governance are detrimental, which is why a supermajority of Americans feel their country is headed down the wrong path.

Who says systematic change is detrimental? Change without a system of it, on the other hand, I believe is detrimental - it's just unfinished work which can lead to deadly incompatibilities and differences in theme, and often lead to contradicting laws. You say government - do you want a government that takes all your money (communism) and spends none of it (capitalism)? Also, what is a supermajority? Do you mean absolute majority? It is the wrong word to use in a binary choice, an arrogant thing to say like this, and a very hard thing to measure.

We are so polarized because there is not even a semblance of a unity of values or culture or politics (and that's a very new phenomenon).

Ha. Ha. A joke: The one country that is more nationalist than America is Vatica. While this is an exaggeration, 19/20 Americans I see on Warlight (probably more in real life) are nationalist.

I think we should abolish the economic side of gov't, and just have economists run it using Keynesian economics.

Well, just let them run it how it works best, forget your "Keynesian". But anyhow, I'm afraid this just does not happen enough, partly through autocracy, partly through dumbness. One ground I support monarchy for is that they are trained to rule from a young age - economics, politics, world studies, so on. Too big a number of politicians haven't the clue.

Ha. Ha. A joke: The one country that is more nationalist than America is Vatica. While this is an exaggeration, 19/20 Americans I see on Warlight (probably more in real life) are nationalist.

Americans definitely tend to be patriotic but we've also become very politically polarized over the past two decades, especially in Congress. I think that's what Jai was referring to- but I don't think that this can be solved by systematically disregarding the values of the (substantial) American "left" and returning to some notion of "traditional" values.

I understand that of course. But there's also something to be said for a society that changes its ideals, values, form of government, and economic system too nonchalantly. All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order.

And I thought empires collapsed because they didn't adapt to changing times, clinging to their outdated rhetorics instead, and refused to recognize that the world has changed. Sun King, USSR, Rome and whatnot.

@Varakreivi - one could argue that the notion of a Russian Empire (which the USSR is a derivative of) collapsed because they radically changed their form of government and economic structure to communism, which under their leadership had little chance of being viable or beneficial to the public.

Are you really even bringing up branches? I am dictator, and my branches are my arms - they don't have sovereign thoughts.

I'm not sure you have a full grasp of American politics. The branches in our government are very much separate entities and things can easily get gridlocked if they refuse to work with each other. I think almost every U.S President has been accused of being a dictator at some point, but only a few came measurably close.

My point is, The President MUST have the support of the legislative branch if he is to have any hope of making significant changes to domestic policy. Donald Trump, who is despised by both major parties, would have Congress blocking him left and right. Not to mention the Supreme Court would likely overrule most of Trump's ideas as well.

The one country that is more nationalist than America is Vatica. While this is an exaggeration, 19/20 Americans I see on Warlight (probably more in real life) are nationalist.

You seem to apply the term "nationalist" very loosely. I'd be interested in learning what your criteria for a nationalist is.

Americans definitely tend to be patriotic but we've also become very politically polarized over the past two decades, especially in Congress. I think that's what Jai was referring to- but I don't think that this can be solved by systematically disregarding the values of the (substantial) American "left" and returning to some notion of "traditional" values.

Polarization is probably one of our biggest problems. We have to learn to compromise and find a moderate middle ground that everyone can accept. One side utterly disregarding the views of the other will only make things worse and worse as time goes on.

One side utterly disregarding the views of the other will only make things worse and worse as time goes on.

Are you specifically stating that the polarization is occurring on one side of the spectrum only? It's been well-documented that it occurs on both sides (although a bit stronger on one side as far as political shifts go). To imply that it's all one side's fault despite all evidence to the contrary is in and of itself a symptom of polarization and does nothing to solve the issue.

My point is, The President MUST have the support of the legislative branch if he is to have any hope of making significant changes to domestic policy. Donald Trump, who is despised by both major parties, would have Congress blocking him left and right. Not to mention the Supreme Court would likely overrule most of Trump's ideas as well.

Well, especially since WWI, US executive powers have increased significantly and now the executive's power > the legislature's power >> the power of the judiciary branch simply because the executive has a far, far greater array of enforcement mechanisms. While Congress can (and hopefully will- although recent legislation might suggest otherwise) block Trump's plans to make Muslims wear special patches and achieve a final solution to America's immigration problems, a President Trump would still have far-reaching executive authority- like the ability to effectively declare war (which hasn't been in the hands of Congress since the Korean War) and even to effectively legislate through executive actions.

The Presidency of the United States has gotten too strong at this stage to be completely balanced out- and even if that somehow happens, the last thing we can use in this country is 4 more years of political deadlock. I guess the one gain would be Congress regaining some of its lost powers simply because of a newfound ability to unite against a common (sadly internal) enemy and a significant portion of the American public now disliking the president even more than many Americans today dislike Obama.

But the other big issue is that the president is the face of the American people- he/she represents us in foreign affairs (which has a significant impact- there was a massive change in foreign approval rates for America as a whole when Bush 43 was replaced with Obama) and (to most Americans- just look at the disparity in turnout between off-year and on-year elections) is the face of the government- which means his rhetoric matters. When that rhetoric is largely hate speech, that only incites further violence. As a brown guy, I won't have much time to appreciate the irony behind getting mistaken for a Muslim even though I'm descended from refugees who fled Islamic governance before I hit the tracks and get run over by a train simply because some radicalized American thought that they should take it upon themselves to protect the nation against a perceived ethno-religious threat they can't even properly identify. (Related story from 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/nyregion/woman-is-held-in-death-of-man-pushed-onto-subway-tracks-in-queens.html).

To be honest, this type of rhetoric really scares the fuck out of me. I was just eating a sandwich at a random person greeted me and asked me where I'm from. Thinking nothing of it (maybe holiday cheer? idk), I said hi back and told him I'm from Texas (y'know, where I grew up and all). Then he's like, "No where are you really from?" like that's supposed to mean something- "India?" Then for a half hour, he brings up ISIS literally every other sentence and asks me whether I like America five times.

I'm just a regular person working toward my degree; the closest thing I have to a religion is my love of Star Trek. And yet here I am, getting interrogated by this random dude about whether I love America (well, duh, I do- I have the economic means to choose where I live) because he thinks I'm some sort of ISIS sleeper agent. All I wanted to do was to clog up my arteries and work toward my goal of drowning in buffalo sauce and ranch.

Seriously, fuck the sort of rhetoric that comes out of Trump's mouth (and from his supporters as well). I don't even care about politics in this country- I'd prefer to be just left alone, but nope- gee, thanks, Mr. Trump for volunteering me for Team People-Who-Aren't-Part-of-Fucking-ISIS.

Edited 12/10/2015 19:42:06

Are you specifically stating that the polarization is occurring on one side of the spectrum only?

No I'm not. Where did I say that I was only pointing fingers at one side? If I was looking to assign blame I would of named one group or the other.

Polarization, by definition, requires two opposite forces. Radicals on both the left and right are the source of this problem, and each would heavily damage the country if allowed to have their way. They both use similar tactics: Censor and demonize the opposition, inspire fear in the population, and disregard any compromise. The only real difference between them is that right-wing radicals tend to be more blatantly obvious for whatever reason. Radical leftists don't receive as much attention but they definitely exist as well.

US executive powers have increased significantly and now the executive's power > the legislature's power >> the power of the judiciary branch

I have to disagree somewhat with the judiciary branch being at the bottom. Every Supreme Court decision is immediately treated as law without any ifs,ands,or buts. Although I will concede that SCOTUS is limited in the sense that their words only matter if everyone else chooses to obey.

is my love of Star Trek.

Always nice to find another Star Trek fan, which is your favorite series? (Totally irrelevant to the topic but I couldn't resist asking)