Pretty sure WaPo debunked that lease sabotaging scandal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...a3e_story.html

So let’s talk ab these because the devil is in the details.
Limited market options, - fought by capitalism but do you mean that there is a gap in supply? If so you need to go experience country life. Limited of options is a golf course kid’s problem.
limited ability for work mobility, like career progression? Try being in the technical career field.
price fixing, illegal
lobbying power, has pros and cons
competition buyouts, M&As are not predatory tactics
location saturation, fought by capitalism but that argument collapses on itself because it would completely backfire on any company unless demand is so high they need to saturate the local market. If I’m interpreting what youre saying incorrectly.
unfair competition, How so? This is the free market, do what you want but it do it better than the rest. My knock off Keurig is better than any coffee shop (compete with that, pretty unfair if you ask me) but Dunkin is better than Starbucks.
price gouging, mostly illegal
lack of variety of products, this is silly, if you suck at producing good products you should probably reconsider careers.
scale of industry impacts, interesting, but It’s in the best interest of a thriving company to produce a good or service for as many people as supply demands. But if you want to elaborate that might help.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sea...-take/%3famp=1

Biden wants to halt all U.S. climate emissions by 2050. Here’s what that would actually take.

I don't see the airline industry or natural gas industry moving much in 30 years.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...ne-ever-to-fly

It is already moving. I think aviation will have to offset their fuel use with renewable biofuels and carbon capture technologies, but they will likely make a move to electric or hybrids in some capacity within the next 30 years. They could certainly reach a net-zero level if properly motivated. As a reminder, we aren't looking to eliminate all CO2 production; we want to get to a point where we aren't adding more CO2 to the environment.

Electric/Battery in planes just doesn't make much sense outside smaller planes to me.

One of the critical things with planes is weight and balance. One of the primary ways of adjusting for load is to adjust fuel (exchanging cargo weight for less fuel on shorter flights for example).

Airbus, with the backing of folks like Gates and Bezos, is taking this path.

I'm certainly not an aeronautical engineer, but it seems the energy density of the fuel is far more important in a plane than a car. (It's important enough in a car as well, and is responsible for BEV limitations of range, charge time, etc.).

A car just needs to move in 2 dimensions. The engine and power source just needs to move it horizontally. A plane needs to move in 3 dimensions. The power source needs to get it off the ground, and safely keep it there (running out of fuel in a plane usually has more severe consequences than the same thing happening in a car). Range anxiety would take on a whole new importance if you're several thousand feet off the ground.

Liquid fossil fuels have about 100 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries. Less energy available (or much greater weight for the power provided) means the laws of physics make it much more difficult to make battery planes practical and financially viable (other than small specialized applications or demonstration prototypes).

Carbon-neutral liquid fuels could be a bridge to the future. Until (or if...) technology advances sufficiently to make some kind of electricity storage competitive with the energy density of liquid fuels, maybe carbon-neutral liquid fuels, such as Porsche's idea, could allow energy-dense uses such as flying while not adding to atmospheric CO2. The chemistry is well-known to do this. But making it happen still requires that the fundamental energy come from renewable sources, such as using solar, wind, tidal, etc. to generate the electricity to run the process of creating the liquid fuel (electrolysis + Sabatier reaction, etc.).

We can go on for days with this stuff. There are millions of examples. I left the youtube links broken, so they aren't dominant in this thread, and I am going to leave this conversation with the following. You can reply as you feel, but I will have to agree to disagree from here on out. If anything, for the sake of the thread and a two-person endless conversation that really could go on and on:


Limited market options is like how many areas might only have one utility company or one internet provider or a really small handful. Please read all of this:

https://www.highspeedinternet.com/re...rnet-providers

Limited mobility in the workplace was more directed at the idea that someone may find getting a different job hard when there are few employers. If we are talking about media then we have 6 corporations owning almost all the media. If we are talking utilities, it may be less. If we are talking phone networks, it may be less too. In a given area, there may be few options for job hoping. My hospital for instance has merged with a number of hospitals in the area and state. Sure I have a few options, but if I burn my bridge with one company then I'm left with few options, or if I want a job at a different corporation then my options are limited. Imagine a future like in the movie Demolition Man where all restaurants are Taco Bell--hopefully a cook isn't fired because then he needs to find a new career.

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/...a-infographic/

Price fixing and gouging beyond supply and demand is more likely to happen as companies become more powerful, have more lobbying power and where there is less competition. We also see this in a more open market with less regulations. There are some examples below, and we see this in the price of many products from medications to diamonds. What are the pros of corporate lobbying? What are the pros of having former execs like those of Monsanto in political offices and vice versa? I think it gives way to more bias, back room deals, kickbacks and incentives than what we gain from any expertise they may have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing#Examples

htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRsZbGs24jY

M&A don't always result in killer acquisitions to reduce competition, but they always lead to less variety in the marketplace. For instance, when Apple bought Beats, or when Marvel bought Star Wars, was there not a change to the direct of each of these product lines. This can be good and bad. It really depends. I'm not saying it is always bad. There can be a synergistic effect where the final merger is greater than the sum of either two products, and the reverse can be true too, but as more and more mergers happen because the parent company continues to gobble up businesses under an expanding profit margin, the market loses competition and the consumer suffers.

One example of this might be cellular networks. AT&T was not allowed to merge with TMobile back in 2011 because the market would lose its forth network provider, but then years later, Tmobile was allowed to merge with Sprint because Dish worked its way into the deal to rise as the forth network provider to maintain competition. Four networks = competition. Ok. Anyways, Dish is using TMobile's networks for seven years, and TMobile promised not to raise anyone's rates for three years, so you know, it'll all work out fine for the consumer. Some people might be confused because they have heard of Mint Mobile and many other mobile providers. Well, these just offer the service, but they use one of the four network provider's networks, so Mint Mobile is actually TMobile's network. Maybe four (really three) network providers is fine in some people's eyes, but I think it is terrible.

https://www.wired.com/story/t-mobile...-merger-guide/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...work_operators

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insigh...shut-them-down

Market saturation or over-saturation as a tactic to eliminate competition or gain a competitive advantage is well documented. The example I already gave from Starbucks is not limited to Starbucks. In that example, Starbucks added more stores in a given location than what demand allowed to operate for a profit, but Starbucks is huge, so they can operate on tighter margins, or they can even operate at a loss, but this isn't the case for their smaller competitors. What happens to them? They go out of business, so now Starbucks can absorb the small business' customers, and now those Starbucks locations have larger margins.

Walmart and other big retailers do this all the time. They get people into the store with household basics that they sell at a loss, so consumers spend time buying other items at a profit. In fact, Walmart is famous for their Roll Back items in the center of the walk way. Yes, the toaster is amazingly $8, but the consumer thinks, this is so cheap, but kinda ehh. What other cheap toasters do they have? Except the toasters in the isles aren't cheap at all. I recall Walmart tried to do this to Amazon back in the day by offering the hot new book at a loss and cheaper than Amazon, but it was only to get people into the store.

While it seems like the consumer wins with lower prices, it actually results in less competition in the marketplace, and it creates a system where there is a large cost to enter the market to be able to compete with such business practices.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ticle-1.140129

htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduHK6XRxSo&feature=emb_title

Scale of industry is problematic in the ways above, but also in the way they change the market itself and the environment. Watch Food Inc, and you get a sense of what factory farming has done to the food industry. We have lost genetic diversity. There is inefficiency in trying to create efficiency by centralizing production instead of buying locally.

A single, large player in the market can have profound impact on the rest of the market. Take McDonalds, which I think was hurt by Food Inc and by Pink-Slime-gate. They recognized the problem, and they recognized the industry trend to buy locally, eat fresh, etc. They are making a change, but their change means a change to so many suppliers in their chain. In the end, their changes are good, but they still have more centralized distribution and production than smaller businesses, and they still have a drive for homogeneous products, so they can create a consistency across locations in a given market.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-wal-mart-effect/

https://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/other...-united-states

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciak...h=9ff617559628

I totally agree. Hydrogen is far more adaptable and practical for planes, and it could offer the ability to go carbon free. It may even make sense for the plane to use a hydrogen engine for take off, ascent and landing, where most of the acceleration/fuel is typically used, but uses electric motors/batteries for most of the sustained speeds during the flight, much like how a car uses only 40hp or less to cruise down the highway.

I don't think range anxiety would be a factor any different than range anxiety would be a factor now with planes. They would calculate their trip ahead of time. Yes, the electric plane may have less range, but that would be worked out beforehand. There might be some advantage to using electric motors and batteries than ICEs for small planes because of reliability, and these small planes have a short flight distance typically.

Just saying, fuel is more energy dense, but the battery will deliver its "fuel" more efficiently, as an ICE wastes energy to heat. For these small planes, it would be cheaper to operate an electric plane. Skydiving anyone?

Commercially for large jets, it is different of course. I think hydrogen and biofuels is much more practical.

A hybrid might work, and would solve a second problem. Most cargo/passenger size planes can take off with more weight than they can land with. This isn't a problem if you are burning fuel, with batteries the batteries themselves would lower the total capacity of take-off weight to match landing weight.

If you are going to the effort to create a hydrogen powered engine though, I don't see much point in a hybrid. Just adds complexity and further reduces empty weight.

As you say, range anxiety would be non-existent in an aircraft since you fly within a margin of fuel anyway (regardless of the fuel type). Ultimately, range anxiety exists now in aircraft, except maybe military aircraft with mid-air refueling.

Yea for shorter missions with light weight (skydiving, flight training, even sightseeing) batteries could work. I'd fly a small EV plane, no problem.

The only reason I offer a hydrogen-EV hybrid as a possibility is because almost all of our hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels in ways that aren't green. If infrastructure for hydrogen wasn't robust, but battery tech had evolved and renewable electric energy was robust, then I could imagine such a hybrid system would be necessary to meet the needs of regulations and the demands of the industry without straining the supply of hydrogen, leading to high price of hydrogen and flights. It all depends on how it plays out.

We could but why would you say this and then proceed to continue the debate? My whole point of the second to last post of mine was to wrap my head around your perspective. Which is obvious at this point. Unfortunately, I think I’m the only one in this two way conversation attempting to do that. I think where you and I are diverting is the understanding of self-interest versus selfishness. In Adam Smiths theories, the pursuit of self-interest promotes the health and wellness of those surrounding you and that’s been a guiding principle for many economists. I find that I align with his theories in that realm. Why have this conversation if you’re not willing to be objective? Are you just trying to teach me something?

Because it is getting more tangential, off-topic and opening more topics than closing.

If you say someone is not being objective, but they provided objective examples to go along with their subjective opinion then you need to do a better job defining how they are not being objective.

I think we both have conceded that there is a middle ground with regulations, but you seem to be arguing that California has too many regulations and seem to be saying that less regulations in the US, in general, would be a good thing. I have argued in favor of more regulations and have argued that deregulations and a market with less limitations than what we currently have is inherently problematic, and I have given plenty of examples to show how the US is continuing to move towards greater oligopolies, and how those systems are ripe with abuse. I don't think there is anything left for me to say that hasn't been said. I haven't heard anything from you to suggest that deregulation or significantly less regulations in any given industry would lead to a better outcome. The only example I can recall is businesses moving out of California, which I countered with citing that it could be regulations or the many other factors such as cheaper labor, cheaper property costs, centralized distribution and production, access to materials, etc. The fact is that there isn't a mass exodus of all businesses from California, and California continues to be a hub for generating new businesses, so I will have to agree to disagree.

I'll happily entertain some examples of industries that have gone through massive deregulation that have since prospered because of it, but I feel deregulation as a philosophy for how to run an economy is like trickle-down economics and massive tax cuts, in that, it is an idea that continues to perpetuate itself without much evidence to suggest it is effective, or to the contrary, the evidence shows the opposite.

You're more than welcome to respond to my examples previously about why oligopolies and giant corporations can often be bad with your own examples.

lol you initially falsely claimed that CA isn’t losing companies and I provided evidence 3 pages back.

You then claimed that deregulation doesn’t work and I posted a scholarly study 2 pages back on the pros and cons. Either you aren’t listening or you just didn’t bother to read.

Fun read on dereg: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...rim-Report.pdf
What I previously posted: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co.../deregulation/
Another good one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/william...h=44fe9fa91c18


Then you claimed monopolies were something they aren’t and showed you another scholarly article and even quoted what it takes for regulators to call a merger a monopoly.

Then you claimed the reasons of why companies were leaving were assumptions and I showed you yet another article citing the exact reasons companies were leaving.

Then you listed perceived flaws in companies that all allude to the characteristics of monopolies. While monopolies are mostly bad they are absolutely needed in some industries, like utilities in general - where these companies have such a high start up cost that competition is inefficient but the demands are human necessities. What is the alternative?? The point is calling something a problem because of how you are perceiving it doesn’t make it evil and greedy. Being evil and greedy is what makes a company evil and greedy. There are pros and cons to many of the things you have argued. Which is what I have showed you but again you seem to not be listening.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...always-bad.asp

One thing you fail to mention ab your toaster example is how these companies are helping poor people. For the same reason people go to McDonalds over Five Guys. Poverty exists and not all people can afford the $90 toaster.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.ac...tions.html/amp

That’s funny man. You provide a WH link as proof of deregulation. Did you even read that stuff? Let me give you an example: someone can claim deregulation has saved people money on healthcare costs, as a possible example, but if those deregulations eased mandates on what is required in policies and removed the individual mandate then prices drop for the average healthcare plan because people aren’t getting as much stuff in their plan and people no longer are forced into a mandate or insurance, so the average person isn’t paying more, but less people are insured. Read the fine print. People aren’t better off. Price of healthcare isn’t cheaper. Why not get some independent analysis?

That Forbes article can be picked apart. Start with their survey of greatest obstacles for small businesses. Is it surprising that a chef/owner of a small restaurant with a high school education is finding government laws and regulations, taxes or anything taking money from his business as being the most difficult? Then it goes into the doom and gloom of regulations while not mentioning why those regulations were ever enacted in the first place. Then it makes an assumption that businesses would have used this money on equipment, facilities, employee compensations. What we have learned is the only trickle down is to CEOs in bonuses. Without regulations companies pollute. Without oversight, companies overreach. Then it talks about all the jobs these regulations require a business to make. And why is that bad? Sounds like the regulations created an industry to me. Other digs at the ACA really doesn’t do much to swayed my opinion because more people had access to healthcare, and I’m for medicare for all and getting healthcare out of the hands of employers, so employees are more free to leave a job and employers aren’t dealing with the costs and bureaucracy. I guess I’m for deregulation as well then.

Monopoly and oligarchies are often the same. At the national level a business can be an oligarchy, but in a local market, they can exist as a monopoly. Of course, it doesn’t take much to suggest a company is not a monopoly. Like maybe Comcast and Dish are the only two internet providers in an area. No monopoly, except many apartments don’t allow dishes to be installed and many areas have obstructed line of sight so a dish isn’t possible, so people there only have one internet provider option. Prices can reflect that, but there is no official monopoly.

You sighted an article that knows why companies are leaving. Did they have access to their internal memos? Is Tesla moving fully out of California, permanently closing its Fremont factory and moving to Texas, or are they just moving their headquarters? Is it taxes? Is it COVID orders? Would a new factory be better built than the retrofitted Fremont factory? Was this planned for years? Do we believe everything Elon Musk is touting as reasons, or is it possible there is more to it?

https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/oracl...ng-hq-to-texas

That is one take on Walmart. I have heard Walmart repeat this “fact” in their TV ads, that regardless of where you shop, Walmart saves the average American $2k+/year. Great for the poor that they are helping to create. What they don’t tell you is how they did that. Walmart has forced bidding wars to get the lowest prices from manufacturers. Because of their huge customer base, they have huge influence to force manufacturers to lower their profit margins. Walmart has “forced” or encouraged manufacturers to move their operations to China or outside the US to keep prices down. Good for their customers. Bad for US jobs. Thanks Walmart. Walmart has consumed small businesses, so there is a double whammy on US jobs and small business owners, redistributing the wealth from many to the few:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...all-businesses

While Walmart and the Waltons are billionaires, their employees are often on government programs like food stamps and medicaid. Seems a little ridiculous that Walmart is too poor to pay its employees a living wage, and they rely on government programs and US tax payers to subsidize their wealth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ficiaries.html

I'm sorry but I just don't understand the large number of persons in love with this car.

Meh healthcare is horrible example. My mother was forced onto ACA her monthly premium started around $700/month with a $6300 deductible (you heard me correct). Then the next year the premium when up to $800 (deductible stayed the same). Then the straw that broke my dads back was the next year it was schedule to go up to $1200/month. My mother had some auto-immune issues and none of her specialty doctors accepted ACA and because of her deductible she was paying 100% of the costs unless it cost more than her deductible. On top of this most doctors didn’t accept that ‘insurance’ and barely anything was covered. In this case, individual mandates drive my mothers insurance premium up 400% and that’s below average. The ACA is trash. You won’t convince me otherwise.

hah I read a good bulk of it and it clearly explains the price drop of prescriptions and wireless internet pricing. So I’m not sure how you’re making your own interpretations on that. Of course I provided a WH link that is the largest source of regulation in our country after all.

You’re getting “tangential” here.

Your examples are utilties. How many starts ups can buy satellite space on a Space X right now to compete? You don’t like billionaires but it’s going to take one to be a competitor in that market.

So that’s not wholly on the business though, your apartment complex is part of that problem, which seems odd because around my parts that’s not a common rule.

They openly stated it in their press releases, social media and interviews. I think his new Armalite Rifle line might have been a some of it but here’s what he’s said in the matter:



You’re getting tangential again. You’re sounding very ‘make America first’ here which is great, I agree with that and ironically the President has been pushing for bringing factories and jobs back to the United States as well with more regulation. Is that good, sure. I’m a fan of increasing American workforce. But there is a saying, you don’t see people starving near a Walmart. So which is more important to you?

Walmart is beyond the federally recognized minimum wage. The states’ min wage rules are going to have horrible impacts on the labor workforce - and they are very close to this completely arbitrary $15/hr number with their average employee earning $13.05. If you want to go down the road of what a living wage is, ($12/hr) Walmart checks that box for their average starting employee, we can but again that’s getting into the weeds of our conversation.

Looks like a Kia Soul with one of the generic wings in Forza.

More like it's baby infant sister. Plus it's not even really a good EV by current standards.

It seems like it might have some potential though.

I guess if you want a "city car" it would be OK.

You missed it. That's ok too. ;)

You talking about the Type R designation on it, or something else?

:iono:

What we NEED:
https://www.electrive.com/wp-content...t-2017-min.png

What state did she live in? Did her state set up an exchange or use the federal government's exchange? What insurance did she have before? Overwhelmingly the ACA has been positive and better than the old system where your mother wouldn't have insurance because of a pre-existing condition or the prices would be even higher. Doctors can always choose not to take certain insurance or only take cash; that is their prerogative unless you think we should make a regulation against that? Regardless, I am an advocate for Medicare-For-All.

Because it is propaganda. Get a third party to assess the situation. And what deregulation policy did he enact specifically to lower drug prices? Prices of internet are going down???

https://khn.org/news/president-trump...ow-are-skimpy/

https://arstechnica.com/information-...o-hidden-fees/



Or responding to your link :iono:


Read the bold above. "...each has a virtual monopoly." You say the apartment complex is part of the problem, but maybe they are just trying to make a buck in a free market system and getting around regulations through loopholes:

https://broadbandnow.com/report/apar...ernet-hostage/


He can talk, but what is happening behind the scenes? Well, Texas is already home to one of Tesla's offices and was going to be the location for the Cybertruck plant. As this article points out, Musk has gone after tax-payer incentives to bring his business to their area. Maybe all his ranting and raving about California is so states will know what he wants, which is low taxes and lots of incentives, yet, maybe he is pitting state against state when he plans all along to go to Texas because the Texas truck market is number one and California is number two.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/elon...1-billion.html


You're creating a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Walmart can pay its workers a fair wage. If Walmart didn't exist then the US would have more jobs, there would be more better paying jobs too, so even if costs were higher for goods, there would be an income or a higher income.

Interestingly, the state with the most hunger (18.7% of households) and the most obesity (40.8%) is Mississippi. With 86 Walmarts, they sit in the middle and are far from having the most Walmarts, which is Texas at 603, but when we compare based on population, if Mississippi had the population of Texas then they might also have 837 Walmarts, proportionally. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Bro, they have more employees on government aid than anyone. McDonalds even openly helps its employees get on food stamps. Your tax dollars are subsidizing their profit margins because they won't pay their employees enough, yet they are racking in billions. What don't you get?

https://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/new...-line-workers/

It is like the iPhone design of cars or something from a Scandinavian Designs catalog. People like simplicity and clean lines. Obviously the concept was much better, but I even like it, and I generally don't like hatchbacks. I would rock that.

I prefer the sports car version. If it only had a manual transmission. Considering a Porsche has only three usable gears, I would settle for a three speed manual.

I bet you didn't like Eve from the movie Wall-E either...

The sports car version is even worse IMO. Now get that think off my lawn!

An EV with 3-speed manual, interesting concept.

Florida. Dad has been in the insurance industry for 35 years and brother has been in it for 17. It was done properly and through the healthcare.gov site. Eventually she joined a group plan and dropped her rate to $200 a month. She’s very happy with this plan as covered is significantly better. The system can benefit people, sure but someone else has to pay for it - my family was carry the latter burden. ACA again is trash IMO and will never have my support. We disagree. Moving on.

Propaganda with evidence and history diagrams? okay. Sure. You clearly didnt read it.


Then what made you go off on multiple different tangents? :iono:

Read the first line of the article... Takes two to tango bro. I’d move, free market ftw.


This is very tinfoil hat of you. He also has Space X there too soooo. I’m sure there was a multitude of reasons but I’m not going to assume anything, I’d rather listen to what has been said not make assumptions.


I’m providing a counter point that allows you to decide what you think the balance should be. It’s not a false dichotomy, it’s food for though that’s highlighting the positive impacts of cheap goods. It’s been proven that some people don’t want to be off government support programs.

There are far too many variables to correlate those statistics. My point is to show how cheap food is necessary to feed the less fortunate.

And they probably will never leave the programs because people like free money.

Someone else was already paying for it before. When there is no mandate people just don't get insurance and then use the emergency room, and the bill is passed on to people with private insurance. The only system that makes sense is a medicare-for-all system where everyone has to contribute something and everyone is in the same group, so prices can be negotiated lower. What is your alternative? Should we deregulate healthcare and get rid of medicare? Should we allow hospitals to refuse care and insurance providers to deny plans to anyone they want? Where would you like to see more deregulation?

I read it and gave clear counter arguments. I even linked an article saying they are raising their rates! What more can I do? I think you just want to have your head in the sand.


Did you even read the article I was responding to or just the headline because every sentence of my response to the article was a response to the article and not a tangent.

Aww, just as I suspected. What you missed in my articles is that this isn't isolated to any one area. In fact, they said "in large portions of the US", and your suggestion to just move is ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact that an area can have a local monopoly, which should be illegal, but it isn't. I wonder why that is?

It isn't tinfoil hat because it isn't a conspiracy. Like the article says, he has a track record of doing just that like he did with a solar panel plant in New York. It is referred to as a pattern of behavior, which is saying one thing on social media, but doing the opposite. The man has literally been fined because his social media comments directly and intentionally manipulated the stock price because he was upset at short sellers. Like Newson said, he isn't concerned about Tesla threatening to leave. California is the largest car market in the US, and proportionally a huge market for EVs in the world, but especially the US. There are ramifications to leaving California, and there are benefits to setting up another plant in the middle of the US in the second largest market and largest truck market besides taxes, regulations and cheaper labor.


No, if you look up a false dichotomy then that literally is what you were proposing, as if it is either Walmart exists, and we have cheap goods, but shitty wages and less small businesses, or Walmart doesn't exist and consumers have to pay more for goods. Wrong! That is a false dichotomy, and it isn't an either/or situation.

"Proven that some people don't want to be off government support programs." I'm sure some people don't. And? That really doesn't say much. Are you saying many people, the majority of people, a large chunk of people? "People like free money". And you don't like free money? What type of statement is that? Stating the obvious, but you are connecting it with programs, so you are saying people like poverty if it means some free money. I'm sure some would say yes, but again, are you saying this is prevalent? Can you back that up with some statistics, but that statement sounds like a conservative talking point more than anything based in fact. Care to read some facts on who is actually getting the bulk of government aid? I'll give you a sneak peak because I doubt you will read it: it is people who paid into the programs who are collecting back their own money like senior citizens and disabled people:

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...blic-benefits/

Again, the US wouldn't need to spend money on food stamps if Walmart paid people more, so those employees didn't need or didn't qualify for food stamps. Does this look like Walmart employees want to have low wages and stay on food stamps? Walmart has a history of subverting unionization, but we know why don't we?

Walmart Workers Picket 1,600 Stores Demanding Higher Wages And Full-Time Work

https://www.ibtimes.com/walmart-work...e-work-1730599

https://populardemocracy.org/news/ho...s-not-unionize

https://azizonomics.files.wordpress....v4vaaayacx.jpg

I thought Eve was cute, her on-screen robot double was a little creepy though...
https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/...ssa-knight.jpg

Looks like the price per kWh has gone down.

https://electrek.co/2020/12/16/elect...h-price-point/

With column-mount shifter :D

Seriously tho I love the sports car version...

This is going down a rabbit hole and could be argued to no end. My answer is the same, my body my choice.

Well my monthly rate dropped and my down/upload rate increased. So it would appear my head is right where it needs to be. I don't invest a lot into what you're arguing. Additionally, if you look at the amount of inconsistencies in service rates state to state you can't develop a clear trend. So again, I'm not convinced.

Don't be childish. If you're going to debate on the internet put on your adult pants and try to have a civilized conversation. I don't care how much anger or sass you're layin down in each post, it doesn't help your argument.

How is it ridiculous? Don't put apartment buildings on blast and continue to give them business. Do something about it. That's your CHOICE. The last apt building I rented from tried to raise my rates $270/month to renew. Bye. Its because your apartment building made an agreement with them, by choice.

The basis of your argument is because of what he did with a plant in New York? That's not a pattern of behavior (nice use of a term that has negative connotation) its a completely different scenario that involved a joint venture. You can't compare the two.

I know what a false dichotomy is but if you're trying to highlight my use of the word "which" in that specific question then you are missing the point of my argument which I tried to explain to you but seem hung up, so whats you're goal with this comment?

The importance of that statement is that even if it is a small portion of those people don't want to leave those government programs then then basis of your argument is flawed. You're asking for empirical data for something that is subjective. Aside from that, lets consider the alternative - lets not allow those people work for the rates they agreed (with their employers) to work for, pay them more and they are in turn disqualified for government social programs without having a choice. Choice. You're removing the option with that exact regulation.


Did you just cite populardemocracy regarding the pro union argument and you're criticizing me for referencing the WH. Interesting. If you want to discuss unions we can but this is going to yet again shift the focus.

Yeah, we can talk unions. The fall of unions was part of the fall of the middle class, the deepening of the income inequality in the country and is one of the biggest problems in this country. CEOs like Elon Musk and large corporations like Walmart have subverted efforts for employees to practice their legal rights to form a union.

https://www.epi.org/blog/weakened-la...ic-inequality/

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...violation-nlrb

That is not private insurance.

You were arguing for universal healthcare and asked me for alternatives (a rabbit hole of a conversation in itself) then turned into the average US citizen paying the bill which down the line you can make the connection but its a stretch because insurance companies only account for a small percentage of that, while the federal, state and local governments account for a the vast majority of those unpaid (uninsured) bills. This can be debated on who and how it is funded and I didn't feel the need to dig into because again, we will end up going down a rabbit hole.

Lol more condescension... I posted the stats and you didn't like the WH as the source and you went down a path of blame against the POTUS claims. If you haven't looked at the cost of internet/Mbps you're not giving me information I care to read. For anyone paying attention the Mb is cheaper than its ever been.

That's your choice. I just find it ironic that you're complaining about the fire being hot while you're pouring fuel on it. I'm more of a, if I don't like the company's tactics I don't give them my business, kind of guy.

And I'm saying the average employee at walmart is earning over $13/hr which is above the well established minimum cost of living.

There have been many studies that have shown, after economic recessions (booming SNAP enrollments) people remain on it until they are no longer qualified.

No what I'm saying is, if you raise the minimum wage mandate you're not giving the people the option to make a decision to remain on those programs or not.

I'm going to let you know, I won't be reading Vox. EPI has good stuff though. You understand that you can't just drive up the cost of labor without considering the effects, right? So lets consider the last minimum wage increase from $6.55 to $7.25 (a $0.70 increase) is estimated to have cost 300,000 jobs. (from this book https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Pub.../dp/0134018974 )

It is well know that minimum wage increases impact employment: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammil...h=397247ed1e7d

On top of that it forces employers to hire, more highly qualified people over entry level. Which counteracts the main goal. (again from previous textbook)

And which companies do you think would be more impacted by these increases? Starbucks or the local coffee shop? Small businesses would take the brunt of these regulations. (again from previous textbook) The larger companies would just automate more (Amazon Go for example).

So I'd ask what is your definition of income inequalities? Because its easy to figure out what drives up the cost of an employee - experience and skill, location, credentials, job description and responsibilities, industry or employer, and success and performance. College experience is one of the biggest factors in wage gaps. Do you think these factors should not matter? Or do you think everyone's pay should move up proportionally?

I think any objective mind can find the pros and cons of unions. It comes down to which of those elements do you hold more important? Are you suggesting unionization just because of the wage increase benefits or something else? If you are then you need to understand that unions are typically in specialized career fields like manufacturing, utilities, construction, and such. Specialized meaning, higher pay. The retail career field couldn't afford union representation. It's unrealistic but an important factor to consider. I think unionization for Walmart would be significantly different than that of Tesla. As for Tesla doing illegal stuff, I won't advocate for them.

It's simple: Everybody making money pays in, everybody in the country is covered. Even right-wing sponsored studies have shown this to be cost-effective. I wouldn't even mind paying *more* to ensure that those less fortunate than myself have healthcare. And also that if anything happens to me such that I lose my job that *I* still have healthcare. M4A is the way to go.

Yeah, and if you have 10 employees and pay 9 of them $1 and 1 of them $100, the *average* pay is $10/hr. The *minimum wage* should be a living wage, everywhere in the country.

As long as they qualify I'm all for giving them the benefits. But making sure everyone who works is paid a living wage would ensure that NO working people require benefits as they would be adequately paid by their employers.

Long/short, I don't believe this "estimate" is arrived at legitimately...
Here's a study for you: Why Does the Minimum Wage Have
No Discernible Effect on Employment?
The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment
response to modest increases in the minimum wage.
https://cepr.net/documents/publicati...ge-2013-02.pdf

IF prices go up a bit and that DOES result in more unemployment, IMO better to have good unemployment benefits and let people use their time and energies to get training or education to find better-paying jobs than to continue to allow exploitation and a race-to-the-bottom in terms of lower wages.

Cost effective doesn't make it better. Do you buy your Bride seats from Taiwan or from Japan? My point was, that some people (my mother included) were paying up to 400% more premium and absurd increases in deductibles for a fraction of the coverage. How is that fair? I didn't even break into the pros and cons because as I said, it's a whoooole different conversation.

Okay, now do it for 2.2 million people.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that people are enrolling into the program as a need and then maintaining membership beyond necessity as a want. I don't care why, I think its human nature - if I can, why not.

Check more sources... https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...663/w12663.pdf

The long term effects of raising minimum wage have more negative impacts on employment that positive. This paper compiled many studies and developed their conclusion based on the culmination of them.