AOC- Amazon Pays their Employees in Starvation Wages.

[ivwshane]

How about taking care of people because it's the right thing to do and its best for the general welfare of this country?

 

[DarthKyrie]

How about taking care of people because it's the right thing to do and its best for the general welfare of this country?

We can't do that, it's unconstitutional!!!!!! Just ignore the General Welfare Clause within the 1st few sentences of the Constitution.

 

[ImpulsE69]

How about taking care of people because it's the right thing to do and its best for the general welfare of this country?

Taking care of people isn't my issue. I take issue with the proposal that we should pay people to have children. It isn't the same thing as helping people who need help. Taking care of people because it is right sounds great, but with what is being proposed here, it would only get tougher. Money isn't limitless, unless we no longer care about debt.

I'm not picking anything apart, I simply quoted your own words back at you which showed you explicitly mentioned the US despite falsely claiming you did not. I don't understand why this is a big deal, you should just acknowledge your error and move on.

The US birth rate is already below replacement level and the idea that we should trap the country in a deflationary spiral in order to to make a marginal impact on global populations when the real drivers are Africa and India is pointless and foolish.

Subsidizing child care would be throwing money at people specifically so they could have children AND continue to work.

I included 'here' to prevent the assumption I meant only places like "india/africa/china". It is trivial that this is what you keep going on about when you know exactly what I was saying. You are trying to pinpoint it to the US to validate your opinion, when the reality is larger than the US (but does include it). If we don't curb population growth things will get worse.

 

[ivwshane]

We can't do that, it's unconstitutional!!!!!! Just ignore the General Welfare Clause within the 1st few sentences of the Constitution.

Well there's that but then there is also the fact that we just can't possibly do that, we don't have the money to take care of our people because of the debt. Ignore the fact that anytime taking care of the American people is brought up, so is the debt but anytime tax cuts for the rich and spending increases for the military come up there is silence about the debt.


Lol, I just saw the post before mine... Called it!!

 

[DarthKyrie]

Well there's that but then there is also the fact that we just can't possibly do that, we don't have the money to take care of our people because of the debt. Ignore the fact that anytime taking care of the American people is brought up, so is the debt but anytime tax cuts for the rich and spending increases for the military come up there is silence about the debt.

That's because the tax cuts for the rich and the military budget pays for itself.

I typed that out and it stills sounds like bullshit to me.

 

[glenn1]

Taking care of people isn't my issue. I take issue with the proposal that we should pay people to have children. It isn't the same thing as helping people who need help. Taking care of people because it is right sounds great, but with what is being proposed here, it would only get tougher. Money isn't limitless, unless we no longer care about debt.

I included 'here' to prevent the assumption I meant only places like "india/africa/china". It is trivial that this is what you keep going on about when you know exactly what I was saying. You are trying to pinpoint it to the US to validate your opinion, when the reality is larger than the US (but does include it). If we don't curb population growth things will get worse.

The plateau and eventual decline of population to some future TBD steady state value is inevitable and @fskimospy will need to figure out how to deal with it sooner or later. You can't keep the global south poor forever to encourage their birth rates. As technology advances their population growth will slow and eventually stop just like in the west. The bigger long term problem is that global populations will soon reflect a majority share of anti-progressive culture and politics that he should be far more scared about than deflation. Current dreams of a diverse, cosmopolitan, and progressive world state will at some point be overwhelmed. Urban progressive yuppies only having 1 child at 45 years old will be outbred and displaced. The future is more likely to resemble the Saudi Arabia or Congo than it will Berkeley.

 

[fskimospy]

I included 'here' to prevent the assumption I meant only places like "india/africa/china". It is trivial that this is what you keep going on about when you know exactly what I was saying.

This discussion would be long over if you just acknowledged the error and moved on. I responded to what you plainly said.

You are trying to pinpoint it to the US, when the reality is larger than the US (but does include it).

Because our discussion is about what policy we should enact in the US.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Well there's that but then there is also the fact that we just can't possibly do that, we don't have the money to take care of our people because of the debt. Ignore the fact that anytime taking care of the American people is brought up, so is the debt but anytime tax cuts for the rich and spending increases for the military come up there is silence about the debt.


Lol, I just saw the post before mine... Called it!!

You are trying to lump me in with your 'omg those guys' narrative. I'm not that. Do I agree with you or other lefts on everything? No. However, I am all for military spending cuts, rich paying their fair share, and helping people who need it. I am not for promoting them to be stupid and lazy, which I feel this would accomplish. Although it is interesting that this alone is such a divisive topic out of a list that someone threw out as potential solutions. It is a good example of how different everyone views things. Right or wrong.

 

[ivwshane]

The plateau and eventual decline of population to some future TBD steady state value is inevitable and @fskimospy will need to figure out how to deal with it sooner or later. You can't keep the global south poor forever to encourage their birth rates. As technology advances their population growth will slow and eventually stop just like in the west. The bigger long term problem is that global populations will soon reflect a majority share of anti-progressive culture and politics that he should be far more scared about than deflation. Current dreams of a diverse, cosmopolitan, and progressive world state will at some point be overwhelmed. Urban progressive yuppies only having 1 child at 45 years old will be outbred and displaced. The future is more likely to resemble the Saudi Arabia or Congo than it will Berkeley.

There's that fear that bigots rely on so much.

 

[glenn1]

There's that fear that bigots rely on so much.

Not fear, simple reality. "It is predicted that by 2030, 80% of world's middle-class population will be living in developing countries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South

Unless the progressive plan is to have an apartheid-like situation where their viewpoints predominate over the wishes of a supermajority of the global population, then a less progressive future world is inevitable. Unless you plan to be the Israel to the global south's Palestinians then the outcome is already determined.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What is the basis for your argument that population decline would be a good thing for the US in either a societal or economic sense?

Maybe the fact that we (as humans) are going to fuck this entire world up beyond repair? God forbid we try to put a cap on the amount of shitheads.

 

[ivwshane]

You are trying to lump me in with your 'omg those guys' narrative. I'm not that. Do I agree with you or other lefts on everything? No. However, I am all for military spending cuts, rich paying their fair share, and helping people who need it. I am not for promoting them to be stupid and lazy, which I feel this would accomplish.

So what I hear you saying is that no, you don't agree that families should receive help in order to raise a child/children that will become a productive member of society due to parents being more involved in their children's lives as opposed to working multiple jobs or longer hours. You disagree that providing things like day care doesn't improve everyone's lives or how providing for basic care can lead to fewer medical issues due to less stress. You disagree that spending money on bettering the American people can be offset by decreases in things that increase costs like medical costs, as I mentioned early, lower crime rates, or the general economic benefits that come with stability.

Right? Or did you not take into consideration any of that?

 

[ImpulsE69]

So what I hear you saying is that no, you don't agree that families should receive help in order to raise a child/children that will become a productive member of society due to parents being more involved in their children's lives as opposed to working multiple jobs or longer hours. You disagree that providing things like day care doesn't improve everyone's lives or how providing for basic care can lead to fewer medical issues due to less stress. You disagree that spending money on bettering the American people can be offset by decreases in things that increase costs like medical costs, as I mentioned early, lower crime rates, or the general economic benefits that come with stability.

Right? Or did you not take into consideration any of that?

Not a single thing there requires paying people to sit at home and have children. They'll do that without that 'bonus'.

What I hear you saying which seems to be the norm around here is 'personal responsibility? pffft, government got me covered!'.

 

[fskimospy]

Not a single thing there requires paying people to sit at home and have children. They'll do that without that 'bonus'.

Uhmm, if they were staying home why are they paying for child care?

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe the fact that we (as humans) are going to fuck this entire world up beyond repair? God forbid we try to put a cap on the amount of shitheads.

So the option is to reduce our population as opposed to reducing our environmental footprint? That seems smart. Its best to hide from the problem and let other growing countries figure out how to deal with the problem rather than come up with a solution ourselves that we can then share with the rest of the world.


I remember when Americans were visionaries, now they are just a bunch of shortsighted scared pussies.

 

[ivwshane]

Not a single thing there requires paying people to sit at home and have children. They'll do that without that 'bonus'.

What I hear you saying which seems to be the norm around here is 'personal responsibility? pffft, government got me covered!'.

I'm sorry I couldn't understand you, maybe you could remove the straw mans balls from your face and try again.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Uhmm, if they were staying home why are they paying for child care?

So do I need to go back and show you what the actual conversation started as? You were the one who threw in daycare. We were talking about paying people to have children. (again, not the same thing).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So the option is to reduce our population as opposed to reducing our environmental footprint? That seems smart. Its best to hide from the problem and let other growing countries figure out how to deal with the problem rather than come up with a solution ourselves that we can then share with the rest of the world.


I remember when Americans were visionaries, now they are just a bunch of shortsighted scared pussies.

The biggest source of our environmental footprint *is* the number of humans, worldwide. Nothing saying we can't work on efficiencies and reducing the damage we do to the environment, but at some point you have to look at the point that we're in the process of developing what's left of the wild land on the planet and wonder when we'll run out of places to put housing and services for everyone.

 

[fskimospy]

So do I need to go back and show you what the actual conversation started as? You were the one who threw in daycare. We were talking about paying people to have children. (again, not the same thing).

I'm not aware of anyone arguing in favor of simply paying people to have children so who are you arguing against?

 

[ImpulsE69]

The biggest source of our environmental footprint *is* the number of humans, worldwide. Nothing saying we can't work on efficiencies and reducing the damage we do to the environment, but at some point you have to look at the point that we're in the process of developing what's left of the wild land on the planet and wonder when we'll run out of places to put housing and services for everyone.

You can't talk sense to people who think personal responsibility and actions only apply to everyone else. Easier to place blame and suggest solutions that always involve money that isn't theirs. He's not wrong about all that other stuff, but the root of it is still the number of humans.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm not aware of anyone arguing in favor of simply paying people to have children so who are you arguing against?

Go back and read what you were initially responding to...and further back..apparently.

 

[ivwshane]

The biggest source of our environmental footprint *is* the number of humans, worldwide. Nothing saying we can't work on efficiencies and reducing the damage we do to the environment, but at some point you have to look at the point that we're in the process of developing what's left of the wild land on the planet and wonder when we'll run out of places to put housing and services for everyone.

As peoples lives become more stable the number of children they have decreases. Its why, if you are for a slower or negative birth rates, you should be supporting trade agreements that focus on the workers and the environment.

So now that your fears of a growing population have been put to ease, we can now focus on how to reduce our environmental footprint for the population of people who can actually afford to do so.

Or you can continue to advocate for government controlled birth rates if you think that is more feasible.

 

[fskimospy]

Go back and read what you were initially responding to...and further back..apparently.

Can you point me to the post where someone argued that we should pay people to have children?

 

[ivwshane]

Can you point me to the post where someone argued that we should pay people to have children?

You won't find one but you will see a post talking about paying people to raise a child. To me those two things are not the same.

Paying to raise a child can have limitations or standards put on it while simply paying to have kids cannot. Both could have limitations with how many children one gets credit for but as it currently stands, having more kids typically means getting more credit.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You won't find one but you will see a post talking about paying people to raise a child. To me those two things are not the same.

Paying to raise a child can have limitations or standards put on it while simply paying to have kids cannot. Both could have limitations with how many children one gets credit for but as it currently stands, having more kids typically means getting more credit.

You could be right in that regards as I'm sure we're talking about the same post. (https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...es-in-starvation-wages.2566600/post-398543530)

This can be considered incentivizing people having children. We can probably argue back and forth about if it really is or not, but if we consider lowest common denominator, and how does this work say if that person couldn't get a job it is basically paying people to have kids. I think the issue I take with it is the 'salary' terminology which leaves a lot open for discussion what exactly that means.

We know this already happens to a degree with the child tax credits, even though while needed to a degree - and hardly cover costs of raising kids, many people use that as a justification to have more children (maybe you've not seen this where you are, but I have).