[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lacius]

Biden is on video promising tax increases and that includes 4 trillion in new debt that he'll use other peoples money to pay off. Sure, rent might go up yearly, but it's not going to increase like it will under Biden if Trump keeps his presidency. You throw on an additional 25-30% of taxes on business owners and those costs trickle down to the consumer. Everything you buy now or the services you use are from people who usually make $400,000 or more so prices are going to go up and go up drastically. The odd thing is that I'm sure once these liberals realize they can't afford nice shoes, a new phone, their daily coffee that they're going to think twice about what they've done to the country. I'm not sure about you, but having everyone be poor isn't my idea of a good time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Nope, I know it does because I experienced it. The wages went up around $2.00 and all of the prices suddenly went up around $2.00 and workers lost their full time status at their jobs. It's not a fantasy created by the GOP because I witnessed it first hand.

Fact check: increased tax revenue doesn't result in increased deficits.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

The GOP has achieved the amazing feat of convincing its supporters that raising the minimum wage will negatively impact them.

Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.

 

[KingVamp]

More affordable houses probably needs to be built, regardless of wages. As for significant inflation, I'm pretty sure that didn't happen with Alaska's oil dividend.

 

[omgcat]

Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.

it's gonna be interesting to see how Florida turns out, they passed 15$ min wage. it goes up to 15$ from now til 2026.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

More affordable houses probably needs to be built, regardless of wages.

Yes, build cheap homes for everyone. Cheap, in every sense of the word. Great idea.

 

[Lacius]

Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.

Fact-check: Raising the minimum wage generally doesn't cause people to get laid off, and it doesn't cause businesses to close. In fact, it often leads to new hiring.

Yes, build cheap homes for everyone. Cheap, in every sense of the word. Great idea.

Fact-check: giving homeless homes seems to be one of the most effective and persistent ways to curb homelessness.

 

[KingVamp]

The Electoral College is how Republicans will win, whether it's this year or in the future. It's the only way they can win, which should be disheartening for anyone who is a Republican. In my lifetime, a non-incumbent Republican has never won the popular vote for president. Not once.

Yeah, the popular vote gap is looking to be even larger this time. Honestly, the EC's days seems to be numbered, even if people can't get rid of it directly.

Fact-check: giving homeless homes seems to be one of the most effective and persistent ways to curb homelessness.

Isn't it cheaper (not to mention moral) than just keeping them on the street?

 

[Shape]

I voted for the Biden because everyone who keeps cutting me off in traffic has a trump supporter bumper sticker.

 

[LumInvader]

So, somehow me pointing out you've got major bias is a personal attack, but you then doing the same isn't? Pointing out you only post information from the left wasn't a personal attack it's a fact. If I was personally attacking you I'd call your mother a bitch. You also keep posting links to all sorts of Liberal sources and never post any Conservative ones. That's not fair nor balanced. I admit I'm a conservative, but all my sources aren't conservative pages and just because you don't like my sources and label anything you don't like as "conspiracy theories" doesn't really discredit them. I know that tactic works on your Left learning friends who are dumb as rocks, but it doesn't work on me.

Look... every person on here knows that I support Biden. It's no secret. However, you called me out for major bias by claiming that I "post nothing, but links to news coming from the left side of the isle," which is an outright lie and definitely a personal attack. Sharing links to moderately liberal and conservative websites (foxnews, nasdaq, marketwatch, fortune, forbes, etc.) with highly factual reporting isn't proof of anything other than the fact that I don't read or promote extremist propaganda.

Perhaps you wouldn't feel the need for these petty call-out posts if you had a history of doing the same.

 

[seany1990]

If you work 40 hours per week at any job then you should earn enough to make a living. If businesses close because paying their employees this amount will cause them to foreclose then its not a good business and therefore should close.

 

[RandomUser]

Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.

Actually I think the tipping system needs to be done away with. It was/is a scam concocted by some restaurant owner because he or she didn't want to pay the full wages of their servers, so they let their customer do it for them.

A link below about tipping and it seems to be different and adding a racism spin on it.
https://splinternews.com/the-racist-history-of-tipping-1798704699
So which one is correct I do not know, however I think they should be done away with.
Edit:
Another link that seems to support the first link and some occupations as well:
https://time.com/5404475/history-tipping-american-restaurants-civil-war/

 

[notimp]

What happened when they raised the minimum wage locally where I live? All of the prices went up and people's hours got cut. In the end the raise in minimum wage was cancelled out by the price increases and people working less hours. So it turns out they had less money in the end compared to before the wage increase.

I however think Biden will give the money he takes from the rich to the poor as I'm sure he'll sign a few executive orders himself, but like that kick ass song I linked to what happens when the people you're taxing don't have any more money because you took it all?

What happens then?

I think anyone from Cuba or Venezuela should chime in on this one.

You stick to income taxes and percentages, that way money never runs out..

Also there is no incentive for 'all the prices to go up. If they do, you dont have a functioning market system anymore, you basically have monopolies that can dictate price structure.

Lets look at this from the perspective of a goods producer that produces a high priced good. His incentive is not to raise prices, but to keep them as low as possible to gain more customers, so they can grow.

Where you'd want to raise prices, if you can, is goods of daily importance. Food, housing prices, ... But if you can, that means that people in that market are colluding, because any competitor in the field could aim for a higher market share, by keeping prices low. Which in the long run is much more valuable (gradual price increases possible on more people).

In my country food prices are a good bit higher than the ones in our neighboring countries, which tends to eat up minimal wage increases eventually. But that money doesnt vanish, but aids local food producers f.e.

What you do in practice is, to raise the minimum wage 'more' to a point where peoples costs of living has no opportunity to eat it up immediately. That way a higher subset of industry benefits.

Gradually this will be eaten away by pricing on necessary items of life (inflation), but what you get out of it is the following:

1. One time effects of a stimulus for local industry
2. Innovation drive (because in order to stay competitive, you have to become better, to still be able to pay wages).

People working less hours makes no sense, because thats either the sign of a 'death spiral' for an industry (we cant pay, we cant produce, we cant sell that much, ...), in which case good bye 'not a viable business model', or the admission, that they hired workers, just to have them stand around and do nothing. So both arent that likely.

Why you dont do it more often, has to do with trends in the housing markets and trends towards automation, and globalization. Its hard to combat those.

But the idea is not that you let yourself be stuck in a 'no development needed/viable' loop forever.

Because that way you structurally are only increasing the margins of industry owners. Who can elongate production schedules without increasing investment, save up more, and then invest in automation either way. So you only give to the rich if you stick to that model.

Their comeback then is, but do you really want to loose jobs, because at some point we'll invest in more automation, or go out of country.

Their argument is not - well, then we'll become bankrupt. Because that would mean, that their business model is not viable at 'minimum wages' which, if you have to admit would be quite the reputation loss..
--

At "people work less hours" as a result of it. This generally means that they work less overtime, because those measures (minimum wage increase) should be coupled with an incentive to hire more people - if you do them today. (So state is expected to get more money through consumption taxes, gives it back to industry - if they are hiring more people (investing in something that produces jobs).

(edit: Actually the opposite trend also would be likely. People work more hours, because less people get hired, IF your industry actually has no 'developmental perspective'. (Costs of new workers rise, if not offset by new incentives given by the state to boost new investments. So you let your actual workers work more - to stay competitive. Which only is a short term solution, because if your competition is hiring, while the state is incentivizing innovation, while you are doing nothing....))

If none of that worked, where you are coming from, what happened more likely was, that you had a very low minimal wage increase that was used to signal 'we've done something', and then to signal 'look it didnt work'. But if done correctly it leads to desired effects.

You can play the 'I dont want for things to change' game all your life, but in the end it just benefits people wanting to 'stretch' their return of investment. (Stretch the investment part, keep the return.)


Wages in the western world stagnating is THE problem of current generations.

To which the response then is, but look at all the cheap TVs you could buy. And the cheap smartphones - which just doubled in price. Because we produced in China, isnt that great? To which the response rightfully to an extent is 'f*ck globailization'.

But actually 'f*ck the distribution of gains in globalization', so 'f*ck the rich'.

(Because globalized workflows lead to better efficiency (specialization possible). When they work.)


Of course that only makes sense, if you believe in economic growth in the future.. (Which in the end you always do. If you are a globalized rich person. You might want to invest in 'lets lower our living standards, yay!' movements to not have to change your businesses for a while longer though. Which coincides with the green/carbon neutral movement, if we dont form it to be a net 'innovation driver', which - to be honest is freaking hard to do, because you try to replace the 'efficiency' of oil at the same time).

 

[wartutor]

This election is a shit show. It only proves that our voting system is broken and need restructured. And trump making an ass of himself. Let them announce a winner before u start legal actions lol.

 

[Lacius]

Yeah, the popular vote gap is looking to be even larger this time. Honestly, the EC's days seems to be numbered, even if people can't get rid of it directly.

If only that were true. There's a political party in this country that will never let that happen since they benefit from it politically.

 

[notimp]

If only that were true. There's a political party in this country that will never let that happen since they benefit from it politically.

To which the answer is the following. If democrats only gained the presidency, but not the senate, and not the supreme court - they can argue for the next 4 years, that they really couldnt do much - I mean with the situation of the markets, and the health crisis (which cant necessarily be solved by giving free healthcare on all matters - again, its not wrong to do so, but...), and everything...

So 'merica gets into its third change vote in a row (If we count Obamas second term as change.. ), without actual change happening.

Thats a mindf*ck.

But remember, safe the constitution! (So always keep voting results close.. Between two parties, that on certain aspects - are practically the same and always will be. )

Do you think Wallstreet cares that this time arround it spent 100mio more on democrates, but usually it does so on republicans?
src: https://www.dw.com/en/wall-street-drops-donald-trump-in-favor-of-joe-biden/a-55420944

Do you think Lindsay Graham cared to do that, at the exact opportune time (2016 but still), and then later never at all?


Starts at 12:48 in

 

[Deleted member 414991]

To which the answer is the following. If democrats only gained the presidency, but not the senate, and not the supreme court - they can argue for the next 4 years, that they really couldnt do much - I mean with the situation of the markets, and the health crisis (which cant necessarily be solved by giving free healthcare on all matters - again, its not wrong to do so, but...), and everything...

So 'merica gets into its third change vote in a row (If we count Obamas second term as change.. ), without actual change happening.

Thats a mindf*ck.

But remember, safe the constitution! (So always keep voting results close.. Between two parties, that on certain aspects - are practically the same and always will be. )

Do you think Wallstreet cares that this time arround it spent 100mio more on democrates, but usually it does so on republicans?
src: https://www.dw.com/en/wall-street-drops-donald-trump-in-favor-of-joe-biden/a-55420944

Do you think Lindsay Graham cared to do that, at the exact opportune time (2016 but still), and then later never at all?


Starts at 12:48 in

idk if you have some muscular disorder in your face causing twitching but the winky emotes are really annoying

 

[notimp]

idk if you have some muscular disorder in your face causing twitching but the winky emotes are really annoying

Well, actually - I have. Sometimes.

Remember, I'm a cynic. And can you image one without a facetwitch?

 

[Deleted member 414991]

Well, actually - I have. Sometimes.

Remember, I'm a cynic. And can you image one without a facetwitch?

i imagine you smelling your own farts

 

[notimp]

i imagine you smelling your own farts

Well that was uncalled for.

 

[notimp]

Oh, and btw that there is a 2% and not 6% difference in popular vote is the result of the democratic party following the epistemology, that 'black people and hispanics, will always stick with us, so we can ignore them' which had the republicans outspending Dems more than 10:1 in both spending and attention in the last few weeks before the election on that demographic.

Democrats instead chose to invest ALL the money they had (and they had much more than the republicans this time around) on 'young educated suburban voters'. A demographic they always had - this time around. And that isnt that large.

Whose decision was that?

Whose decision was it to go with Biden?

Whose decision was it to focus on an election campaign void of any content except for 'I will not kill you - signed Biden'?

Again, you are on track to win by 2% against the worst candidate possible. The one that actually has to contemplate leaving the country, after the potentially failed reelection.