agent_turtle

"Yeah the house may be on fire but we can't even begin to put it out until we make sure every other house in the city is not also on fire."

> I do not have enough information to definitely say whether it’s good or bad.

Usually when I don't have enough information on an issue, I take it upon myself to learn more about it before stating an opinion.

> Most of the things in life are neither because they have good side effects, and bad side effects to them.

You don't have to be a doctor to understand that the downside of cancer probably outweighs the upside of not having to save for retirement. Economic instability is the cancer in this metaphor, and the cause of it is Trump changing his mind on tariff rates every other day. Economists, like doctors, are trained on how to treat this illness, and all of them are saying "stop doing that". Trump can either listen to the experts or continue on his path, destroying the American economy in the process.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

"I can get the drug prices down… 1000% 600% 500% 1500%. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable." - Donald J. Trump, POTUS

7.26 is technically more than 7.25. Further, a low floor acts as a weight, depressing wages generally.

"Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift wages for over 33 million workers": https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-15-by-2025/

(For the record, 33 million is ~6 million more than the population of Australia)

Trump just fired the BLS chief because the economic data from liberation day onward was terrible..

yeah, actually. If the worst thing you can find when paying living wages for workers is a small drop of 2.7% employment among fast food chains, that sounds like a great trade off.

Seriously, do some introspection here.

You view this as zero sum. How many new business owners would be created if people had enough to save? How many new businesses would exist if more money was flowing in the economy? Should businesses exist if they can't pay livable wages?

These aren't hypothetical questions. We have an answer for them all over the country where state minimum wages are rising in Democratic states.

> Decades of worsening conditions for the commoner is Ron Wyden's idea of a booming economy. Democrats are useful idiots.

I can't anymore, folks. Republicans passed the largest tax cuts for billionaires, increased the deficit by trillions, and kicked millions of people of medicaid. Meanwhile, Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs we've ever seen which affect the poorest the most.

Yet Democrats are the useful idiots. Incredible.

I got my first job as a grocer in 2010 which paid a minimum wage of $7.25/hr. That was 15 years ago and the minimum wage is still $7.25/hr.

Current unemployment is a very low 4%, which completely contradicts your baseless theory.

You can do that without creating a single unaccountable entity housing everyone's data. In fact, it is a weakness to have a single point of failure.

Your argument is that stronger nations bully weaker nations, and somehow this supports the idea that there should be only one strong nation.

That's because we elected a clown, not because our military is weak.

Again, you're not making the argument you think you are.

"Russia attacked a weaker country because it is stronger. This is why we need one country to be stronger than any other country."

Mutually Assured Destruction works because of the Mutually part.

Russia does not use nukes because the US and EU exists as deterrents.

It's naive to frame this as a binary choice between disarmament and creating a single unaccountable entity for all of the world's data.

Cool, now imagine if Nazi Germany had that monopoly.

You're making the case for why it is so dangerous for the world that one nation/company has this much power over others.

Part of the question here is how much power one company should have and who is responsible for it. A government is ultimately beholden to its citizens; a company is only beholden to shareholders.

The nuclear deterrent works because of MAD. If only one nation had the capacity for nuclear weapons, there's a strong case to be made that we'd be living in a totalitarian world state or at the very least vassals to the dominant state.