Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

[Parkbandit]

Hey Einstein- I didn't say I supported the law. I already pointed out that it's probably not going to work. I said I supported the sentiment of the law.

Learn. To. Read.

So.. what's your idea of a law that WILL work in both enforcement AND actuality?

That's the problem with liberals... they feel that something should be done, but have no actual method of doing it.

But as long as they feel.. that's the important part!

[Taernath]

You're looking at this the wrong way. Income equality isn't just a question of morality- it's good policy.

The consequences of extreme income inequality are rampant inflation, increased poverty rates, increased crime rates, exploding rents, etc. None of that is good for an economy. Redistribution of the wealth to other sectors helps them combat the rising inflation and also slows it down. And on a less dire note- we all benefit from having a thriving restaurant scene in our city.

Sometimes the moral option is also the practical option

Yes, I get that income inequality is a big deal and should be discouraged/fought against. But what does subsidizing other businesses do to directly combat income inequality? You've said elsewhere that some fast food places are offering $19/h wages but it doesn't matter because you can't live on anything close to that in the area. If the government steps in and keeps those businesses afloat by allowing them to offer even higher/livable wages, that won't magically cause living costs to go down. If anything, they'll go even further up.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, I get that income inequality is a big deal and should be discouraged/fought against. But what does subsidizing other businesses do to directly combat income inequality? You've said elsewhere that some fast food places are offering $19/h wages but it doesn't matter because you can't live on anything close to that in the area. If the government steps in and keeps those businesses afloat by allowing them to offer even higher/livable wages, that won't magically cause living costs to go down. If anything, they'll go even further up.

Now you are talking like a greedy capitalist.. you better watch it or your DNC Card will be seized.

[Tgo01]

Yes, I get that income inequality is a big deal and should be discouraged/fought against. But what does subsidizing other businesses do to directly combat income inequality? You've said elsewhere that some fast food places are offering $19/h wages but it doesn't matter because you can't live on anything close to that in the area. If the government steps in and keeps those businesses afloat by allowing them to offer even higher/livable wages, that won't magically cause living costs to go down. If anything, they'll go even further up.

time4fun once suggested the government should set a cap for rentals. Because nothing bad could possibly come from that.

[time4fun]

Yes, I get that income inequality is a big deal and should be discouraged/fought against. But what does subsidizing other businesses do to directly combat income inequality? You've said elsewhere that some fast food places are offering $19/h wages but it doesn't matter because you can't live on anything close to that in the area. If the government steps in and keeps those businesses afloat by allowing them to offer even higher/livable wages, that won't magically cause living costs to go down. If anything, they'll go even further up.

You're right- subsidizing by itself doesn't necessarily fix things: taxing the entities that are holding the most wealth and then subsidizing with that money can. Right now, we're having a hard time just keeping restaurants open during lunch hours in SF because there's not enough business. It makes it hard for restaurants to stay afloat (and it's already really tough for restaurants to stay afloat in general)

There's also a difference between counter help and severs. Servers will generally make far more than $20 an hour, but they can't get a job for a lunch shift if the restaurant can't afford to be open during lunch. Being able to pick up some extra shifts may be the difference between being able to live in the city you work in or having to live 40 miles away.

Ultimately, though, you're right that this isn't a magic bullet. (just to re-emphasize here- I don't think the proposed law is a good one) It's not like we'll solve systemic income inequality by targeting this one small slice of it. But it's a start.

What really needs to happen is we need to start taxing top income brackets at the rates we used to, and we need to outlaw stock buybacks again. Those two issues are the biggest drivers of income inequality right now. The Bay Area is just feeling the consequences more than most areas because it has a ridiculously large number of millionaires and a significant slice of the population is compensated with equity.

[Methais]

You're looking at this the wrong way. Income equality isn't just a question of morality- it's good policy.

The consequences of extreme income inequality are rampant inflation, increased poverty rates, increased crime rates, exploding rents, etc. None of that is good for an economy. Redistribution of the wealth to other sectors helps them combat the rising inflation and also slows it down. And on a less dire note- we all benefit from having a thriving restaurant scene in our city.

Sometimes the moral option is also the practical option

What are you doing to help, since you've already admitted that you're part of the problem?

Fun fact: Lip service isn't considered helping

[BigWorm]

And what if the tech companies respond by charging 1 penny for their meals? What would time4fun have the government do next? Force them to charge a certain amount of money? She'd love that.

So this already happened. The tech companies used to provide free lunches, but the IRS ruled that it was a taxable fringe benefit. So if they charged $0.01 for lunches, they'd either need to provide a lunch that actually costs 1 cent to produce (gross), or the difference between the actual cost and what the employee pays would be taxable.

[Methais]

Hey Einstein- I didn't say I supported the law. I already pointed out that it's probably not going to work.

Hey Cuntstein, you know you'd be thrilled if the government somehow got to dictate how much they charged people for lunch.

I said I supported the sentiment of the law. i.e. "Thoughts and prayers" but literally nothing else because all I do is provide lip service while being a gigantic hypocrite in pretty much every way possible.

Ah I see. This makes much more sense.

[Taernath]

You're right- subsidizing by itself doesn't necessarily fix things: taxing the entities that are holding the most wealth and then subsidizing with that money can. Right now, we're having a hard time just keeping restaurants open during lunch hours in SF because there's not enough business. It makes it hard for restaurants to stay afloat (and it's already really tough for restaurants to stay afloat in general)

There's also a difference between counter help and severs. Servers will generally make far more than $20 an hour, but they can't get a job for a lunch shift if the restaurant can't afford to be open during lunch. Being able to pick up some extra shifts may be the difference between being able to live in the city you work in or having to live 40 miles away.

Ultimately, though, you're right that this isn't a magic bullet. (just to re-emphasize here- I don't think the proposed law is a good one) It's not like we'll solve systemic income inequality by targeting this one small slice of it. But it's a start.

What really needs to happen is we need to start taxing top income brackets at the rates we used to, and we need to outlaw stock buybacks again. Those two issues are the biggest drivers of income inequality right now. The Bay Area is just feeling the consequences more than most areas because it has a ridiculously large number of millionaires and a significant slice of the population is compensated with equity.

I think you're arguing something that's separate from what the rest of us are arguing. We're not talking about income inequality, we're talking about a business being forced to subsidize smaller businesses who can't compete. If you open a pizzeria in a place that has a bunch of other pizzerias, you better have some damn good pizza otherwise you'll go under. Likewise trying to open a vegan place in Satan's Butthole, AZ (population 15), or a small general store next to Walmart. If you can't compete, you go under. That's especially true in the restaurant business which has fairly small profit margins.

I said I supported the sentiment of the law.

This is where the confusion comes in, because the sentiment of the law seems to suggest larger businesses need to support smaller, competing ones.

[Parkbandit]

I think you're arguing something that's separate from what the rest of us are arguing. We're not talking about income inequality, we're talking about a business being forced to subsidize smaller businesses who can't compete. If you open a pizzeria in a place that has a bunch of other pizzerias, you better have some damn good pizza otherwise you'll go under. Likewise trying to open a vegan place in Satan's Butthole, AZ (population 15), or a small general store next to Walmart. If you can't compete, you go under. That's especially true in the restaurant business which has fairly small profit margins.

This is where the confusion comes in, because the sentiment of the law seems to suggest larger businesses need to support smaller, competing ones.

I got you a present:

https://www.gop.com/activate-your-membership/

Let me be the first to welcome you into our fold, you dirty reformed hippie.