Comments by "SciFi Realism" (@scifirealism5943) on "These Billionaire Babies Already Own EVERYTHING!" video.

  1. Because poor people deserve a better life? Immigrants too?
    2
  2. Except what you aren't seeing is corporations want to depress wages. Corporations support immigration because what corporations want is access to labor forces who cannot afford to argue and will work very hard for very low rates of pay.
    2
  3. This is a moral issue to you: you believe poor people simply don't deserve to make that much money.
    2
  4. You don't have the right to tell other people how much money they deserve to make.
    2
  5. You don't have the right to shame poor people
    2
  6. So this is a moral issue to you: you believe poor people don't deserve to make that much money.
    2
  7. ​ @reinsmano  then argue for skilled positions to be paid more, not for poor people to be paid less. You're acting like $20/hr would make all doctors quit.
    2
  8. Yes.
    2
  9. Rich and poor go together
    2
  10. Yep.
    2
  11. Read Herbert gans functions of poverty.
    1
  12. Ok
    1
  13. ​ @spiritof6663 exactly.
    1
  14. ​ @spiritof6663 the real reason people oppose a living wage is because they believe poor people don't deserve to be middle class.
    1
  15. If a business can only thrive by paying poverty wages then that business shouldn't exist.
    1
  16. Yep
    1
  17.  @NOYFB982  why? Not everyone can be skilled. There are way more low paying unskilled jobs than skilled ones. Everyone can't go off and be rocket scientists and doctors. Not everyone can even work.
    1
  18.  @NOYFB982  I can't see my replies now. I hate this.
    1
  19.  @NOYFB982  let me know if you see my replies.
    1
  20.  @NOYFB982  I hate YouTube filter system. I don't know if my replies are being deleted or shadow banned.
    1
  21.  @NOYFB982  I said not everyone can gain skills or steady employment due to poverty, disability, mental Illness, and other factors beyond their control.
    1
  22. ​ @reinsmano why is the value of a fast food worker lower than that of a paralegal?
    1
  23.  @reinsmano  I don't understand why people have such disdain for minimum wage workers in particular. It isn't about the job not requiring a degree or training, because actors and news anchors make millions of dollars and aren't treated with the same disdain cashiers are. On some level, the minimum wage debate isn't about the minimum wage. What it is really about is the fact many people want a lower class of people not just economically that makes less, but ideologically is seen as less/inferior.
    1
  24.  @reinsmano  it is about seeing people as inferior(not for you, but many others). There's nothing ignorant about this. If working and being in poverty was deemed intolerable by society, if ending poverty through this mechanism was the top priority, then all other priorities would pay the price. If inflation, automation, unemployment magnified, then so be it. Since society is not willing to go this far, then continued poverty is not deemed intolerable.
    1
  25.  @reinsmano  how is it idealistic to state all priorities are not created equal? I don't know how to else state that. Poverty is a policy choice, and the minimum wage being at where it's at right now proves it. In a way, poor people are forced to take such jobs now because welfare isn't robust. By that I mean poor people have no incentive to work such jobs since welfare, an income grant, pays more than what can be earned from minimum wage employment. I.e. a $10.50/hr cashier wage cannot pay for food, housing, childcare, health insurance for a single person, much less family. Which is what welfare accomplishes. Which is why welfare is restricted. UBI would run into the same problem, which is why it is opposed now.
    1
  26.  @reinsmano  basically what I'm saying is people support poverty. It is a simple math problem: any income grant that can lift everyone out of poverty pays more than minimum wage jobs, so politicians either end up with a situation of people being dependent on welfare and not working, or dependent on working poverty wage jobs with no welfare, trapping people in poverty either way. Since people say minimum wage jobs deserve to pay poverty wages/not compete or exceed welfare, the only options left are to either eliminate such jobs or force poor people into taking them. And yes, by restricting welfare/UBI with workfare, this coercion is not only created by supported.
    1
  27.  @reinsmano  1. Then we'll disagree on believing poverty can or cannot be eliminated/isn't a policy choice. 2. Inflation is not at the heart of the minimum wage debate. What at its core the minimum wage is about is the fact many people believe minimum wage workers deserve poverty, both in an absolute and relative sense. 3. I've already stated inflation is an acceptable risk. As is the case with unemployment and business bankruptcy. 4. I've already stated the core problem with both UBI and welfare: that income grants large enough to lift everyone out of poverty pays more than minimum wage jobs. It doesn't matter if inflation stops tomorrow. If you pay a cashier $10/hr, and you also as a matter of principle fund an income grant that can cover their medical expenses, food, childcare, transportation, housing, and let's not forget college tuition too(since Pell grants are essentially income grants for poor people as well), then the income grant will pay more than low wage work. Unless healthcare in America costed literal pennies Or cashiers were permitted to make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year if not per month, which converted to an hourly wage is far above $20/hr, (cost of healthcare in USA is outrageous obviously) then any income grant that covers the current cost of healthcare would erase any possible compensation that can be earned from a minimum wage job. It's like me pointing out that doctors don't need food stamps, and having to argue other points like inflation. Even if inflation stopped Tomorrow, a doctor will make far more than enough money to erase any possible compensation from welfare.
    1
  28.  @reinsmano  okay, then you're saying it's more important to mitigate the risk of inflation, automation and unemployment than accept the risk of cashiers making $20/hr. That is admitting you aren't willing to pay such a price to helping MW workers.
    1
  29.  @reinsmano  I just looked up an inflation calculator. $10.50/hr in 1913 is equivalent to $335/hr today. Or $696,000/year. If that truly is correct, then inflation is like a tax that would require everyone to be millionaires or billionaires in order to avoid.
    1
  30.  @reinsmano  they have several terrible motives. But the main one is like you said: control. No billionaire or doctor accepts minimum wage jobs, only the poor and unskilled do. Welfare is one mechanism that increases the bargaining power of poor/unskilled workers, which is the real reason welfare/universal basic income programs are opposed by corporations and the government. If poor people have no access to such programs, then they are forced to work for the crummy wages corporations offer. Especially to those cashiers. That's all I'm saying.
    1
  31.  @reinsmano  my compassion is genuine. I did not realize how extreme inflation is. Yes, if I made $335/hr when I was a cashier, then I would have never needed welfare like I did.
    1
  32. Yes
    1
  33. Read Herbert gans functions of poverty.
    1
  34. That's on corporations​ @thomasespositio3139 
    1
  35. ​ @timn5008 yep
    1
  36. You believe in just world fallacy.
    1
  37. There are too many poor people: 140 million people are in poverty.
    1
  38. Herbert gans
    1