The past 30 years honestly doesn't look all that peaceful to me.
Frankly, if you think that major war is gone, well, I invite you to travel back to 1912, when many people said the same thing. Europe was ablaze in prosperity and growth, there had been no war for 2 generations, and the leaders of all the major nations were related and tied together in various ways.
But if you want more directly, the kamikaze was a fool's idea with limited impact, almost ineffective
I disagree with your assessment of the effectiveness of it, on the contrary, it was actually quite effective, considering the situation and balance of power that existed at that time.
Had it been used sooner, Japan might have won, they simply waited too long to employ it.
There is a reason we use guided missiles today rather than rockets or battleships with big guns, they are simply more effective. The Kamikaze was the first guided missile, and they were quite effective, sinking dozens of ships, damaging hundreds more, for the cost of about 4,500 airmen willing to give their lives.
And there's also the threatening. Kinda hard to resist when they'll shoot you and your family.
The irony is that Japan didn't generally have to use such tactics to convince people to do it, they were all volunteers. Japan had spent a long time building up a culture where dying for the Emperor was the highest and best good use of your life. Look at some of the latter battles of the war, count the number of people defending the islands, the number of dead, and the number captured. Those numbers are more extreme in terms of percentages than any other battlefield anywhere else in the world.
But many veteran officers and pilots in Japan? Resisted the idea, and found it repugnant. They didn't think it was glorious, they thought it was madness and suggested those who thought of it be the first.
They might have said that after the war, and there is always someone, somewhere, who says "I told you so", but the truth is, they saw the world differently than the west does. You have to take off your western glasses and understand that morality is just a point of view, the universe doesn't really care.
The timeframe involved since nuclear weapons isn't that long, and frankly I suspect you need to do some math, you might find your visions of peace and deathless conflict are colored by a lack of death in the west, not total deaths.
How many deaths in the Korean War? Vietnam? Iraq? Ok, put aside wars the US fought, how about India/Pakistan wars, Isreal/Everyone else, USSR/Afghanistan.
While it is true that we haven't had a world war since WWII, that doesn't mean that we haven't had tens of millions of deaths from war since then, they were just spread out among many conflicts.
There was plenty of war before that as well, WWI and WWII are perhaps outliers, hopefully never to be repeated, but they don't mean war has ended. It just means that major nations haven't directly fought for 70 years.
So what, that happened before those wars as well. Then people forget and do it all over again.
Arguably while war is all about winning, it's not at "all cost".
It isn't, because we've been winning for a long time... that changes when you're losing... Look at the Japanese 1944-45, with the Divine Wind and tell me they weren't willing to pay any price?
It took nuclear weapons to get them to see reason.
Even though war is a terrible and bloody affair, we as societies have constantly been moving towards more humane and less deadly conflict.
From your safe place behind a safe computer, you can say that.
Go ask the people in Syria if they feel like they are taking part in a "more humane and less deadly conflict".
You're kidding yourself if you think that is war. War is hell, and you don't win by "only kinda sorta almost fighting..." You win by so completely crushing your enemy that he puts up the white flag and says "you win, sorry for all that, let us know what the new rules are"
Anything less and it never really ends.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
But invading would just set them all into Poncho Villa mode (now with meth and tequila).
Maybe... or maybe in 30 years they end up like Germany... who wasn't happy we invaded, but we did kick out their government and look how that turned out?
Ok, so we totally screwed up Iraq, but that is because GWB and his inner circle were clearly idiots. But it CAN be done right.
It will take decades, but they will sort it out.
And that would be fine, if they weren't bothering us. But they are, so they don't get decades.
I believe it was 'The Economist' that sorted the raid statistics against who was in charge of the police.
I am FULLY aware the police are worthless in Mexico. I'm not, and never have been, talking about the police. I'm talking about the Mexican Army, which has been reported to be far less corrupted than the police ever were.
If I were Google, I'd offer it to them for free. Just being in millions of cars is worth something.
Apple probably would want money however,
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Well perhaps your normal politician can't. I could, because I don't give a damm. That is part of Trump's appeal, in case you didn't know, he doesn't appear to give a damm.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
It is quite possible that you're right. I'd like to think even the drug lords are smart enough not to engage the US Army, but perhaps they aren't.
As for the Mexican President, he always has the choice to say that to Trump, at which point Trump can say, "Do you want out? Do you want my protection? Side with me, turn on the cartels, and you'll have US military protection against retaliation if you want it. You can say you invited us to help, you invited us in to crush these criminals. I'll put 10,000 troops around you and your family if I have to, you'll announce to the world that you have ASKED for American help in defeating this evil and that we will work together to rid ourselves of this menace."
And of course if all that you say is true, then perhaps we do need to clean up our southern border, it has been ignored too long.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand what point you're talking about.
Yea, I get that. I don't want to insult you by saying "reading is hard", since that is just rude. But it sure seems like you are having trouble reading what I'm writing.
2 million people being paid $10/hr (plus overhead) will cost FAR less in taxes than 20 million people paid $9/hr (plus less overhead).
Does that help?
Exactly! Utopia!
I hope you're joking, because I'd like someone to make sure the water keeps flowing, the power stays on, and the trash gets picked up. Who do you plan to have do that, when those people quit and go sit at home to collect their free money?
Society.
That sounds nice, but "society" is made up of all of us. Those "us" don't much care to work hard to pay for the lazy.
The one in my older 2012 Yukon was worthless, really terrible. They have gotten much better in the 2015 and later models, you can just talk to them now (mostly).
My 2014 Ford has the MyTouch system, which is ok, but not great. I'm looking forward to replacing it with something with Sync3, from the demos I've seen, voice search has taken a big leap forward.
---
Side note: I haven't figured out why the car companies don't just put Apple/Google in the cars. When I ask Siri to navigate somewhere, she is right on the money 99% of the time.
Germany does have one benefit, they tend to have a strong worth ethic...
Too many Americans are fat and lazy and just don't want to work.
Yes, yes, I know, broad brush... but I see it every day...
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Yes, exactly! instead of 2 million people whose lives are made less enjoyable, you'd have 20 million people whose lives are made more enjoyable!
Who exactly do you plan to have pay for that?
Thanks, but I'm not much interested in working hard, paying taxes, just so 20 million people can sit at home and do nothing.
If that becomes an option, perhaps I'll do that too. Then everyone does it, and no one works.
THAT is the point you're missing. You assume that the rest of us are happy to pay for all those people not working. We're not.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Diplomatic actions have consequences.
Yes they do, but doing nothing does as well. As I said, I didn't say it nicely, but I don't have to, I'm posting to Slashdot.
In reality, I believe that Trump knows that he would have to use a bit more tact than that.
You write we are powerful we can force Mexico to build a wall.
That isn't actually what I said. What I said is that we can make Mexico an offer. Let them build the wall with us, or let us do it on our own, on our own terms.
For all of Trump's bluster about "Mexico is going to pay for the wall", clearly the cost is up for discussion. Trump can sit down with the President of Mexico and say, "Look, you have a problem with drug cartels, we have a problem with illegal immigration. Lets work together to solve this. We'll split the cost of a wall, joint US and Mexican armed forces will patrol it, and in return, US Army forces will go into Mexico working WITH Mexican Army forces to fight the drug cartels and restore order to your nation. If we do this, we'll also work towards immigration reform to make it easier for people to come and go across the border, for cross border investment (factories, jobs, etc) and to enable familes to get back together."
That is the "lube" option.
The "no lube" option is far less desirable and would involve US Army forces doing all of the above, but without working with the Mexican Army. Now I imagine the Mexican Army might consider defending their land, and they would lose.
How would you like it? Friends, or not friends?
or signs an alliance with China or Putin?
China and Putin are far away, Mexico is right there. We also control the oceans on both sides of Mexico.
Russia took over Crimea because it was right there next to them, because it was far more important to them than it is to us. Ukraine also borders Russia and is clearly not an area we want to send US Army troops. Mexico is the same, but in reverse.
or devolves into Syria and now you have 120 million people trying to cross the border
Not even remotely the same situation, because we aren't trying to oppress the Mexican people, and neither is their government. Bashar al-Assad is...
Those are the many reasons why a play yard bully taunt wouldn't work.
You keep using that term. It doesn't really apply when the "bully" has the ability to back up his words.
Trump will try the carrot approach first, he is no fool, you work with people (he has done that all his life, you have to get large building projects approved). If you can't, then you work against them to replace them or push them aside to get what you want.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
If you had asked me 5 years ago about basic income, I'd have called you a "commie".
Today? Not so much. Not because I don't see it as socialism, but rather because I see that we ALREADY are rather socialist, we just did it the most inefficient way possible.
There are SO MANY government welfare programs of all types, the amount of money spent administering "the money" is nuts.
I suspect that if you took all the social security money, food stamp money, section 8 housing money, WIC, and the hundred other programs big and small, and put it all together and turned it into a monthly check, you might find that a basic income is not as "expensive" as you'd think.
I haven't done the numbers, but my gut tells me it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the "naysayers" suggest.
---
You're right of course, the "ideological feelings" issue is a hard one, and people's feelings are real, even if misguided. People like to believe what they believe and don't change easily.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
You support suboptimal policies, simply to satisfy your need to see people "work for it", even despite the increased societal costs.
I understand your point of view, but it is misguided...
Bear with me here, I have a point:
Consider that if we do what you suggest, replace those labors with machines for $1/hr and pay people $9/hr to stay home, then they might just stay home forever. If you give people the option to stay home and watch TV for $9/hr or go get a private job for $15/hr, many people will take the $9/hr and sit at home.
The point of the "busy work" is not to be productive, it is to make it less desirable than getting a private sector job. The thinking goes, "well crap, if I have to work anyway, I might as well get $5/hr more for it, I'll go get a private job".
If the option becomes, "gosh, I can do NOTHING and get $9/hr, or go get a job for $15/hr, hell, I'll take the $9/hr for NOTHING".
At $10/hr for busy work, you might have 2 million people doing it, at $9/hr for sitting at home, you might have 20 million people doing it.
That is the reasons for it, not to "make them work for it".
I agree with many of your points... however, there is a moral question here...
"Are you allowed to sell your labor for any price you like, or only for the government approved price?"
In other words, is your only choice "sell your labor for a minimum price, or you can't sell it at all?"
Imagine if we passed a law saying TVs had to cost at least $500? If cars had to cost at least $25,000...
That is what minimum wage really is, a law saying that either you sell your labor for X price, or you can't sell it at all. It is a limitation on your freedom and right to work for any wage you see fit.
---
Now, that being said, my above points do NOT invalidate your comments about low wages being a subsidy for Walmart, since you're quite correct that they get government benefits at those wages, and thus we're subsidizing that low wage.
The only way my point above works is if you remove those government supports. But we aren't likely to do that.
So, would I support raising the min wage to $15/hr? Yea, probably. I just don't like the moral implications of it and to go along with it, you have to address what you'll do with all the newly unemployed people.
Right now, in my office, we have a girl who answers the phone. It is the easiest job in the world, she simply answers the phone, directs visitors to where they need to go, and otherwise gets coffee for the boss and keeps the break area clean. She gets paid $8/hr.
That job isn't worth $15/hr. We might still want someone to answer the phone, but now we will have to come up with additional duties to justify the pay, and the 19 year old girl who is currently sitting there isn't qualified for them. So she would lose her job, to be replaced either by technology, or by someone more qualified.
And yes, I get that over time, all wages would slowly rise, making that job now "worth" $15/hr, assuming all prices and wages rose along with the minimum. But that would take time and until it happened, she would still lose the job she has.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
With Trump is different. We have no clue what he stands on, and "I'm going to bully the world to do what I want" is a play yard tantrum, not realistic policy, in spite of what you write above.
Again, you deny what I write because you don't like it, because it isn't politically correct to say it, and because "it isn't nice".
What part of what I wrote would not be possible for a President Trump to do (assuming he had some level of popular support of course)? You call it a "play yard tantrum". Is it? When the person doing it is Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world?
Do you honestly not think we are unable to send the US Army to the border, secure some amount of buffer zone and make it a secure area?
Now, will Trump do that? I have no idea (probably not)... but if he is President, it is FAR from a "play yard tantrum"...
Lastly, the problem with immigration can be solved in an instant if you really want to: put strong penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants.
Remind me which of the people currently running for President have suggested that as their platform?
Since the answer is none, perhaps Trump is the only person who has proposed anything that might do SOMETHING... as opposed to all the hot air from everyone else.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Bloomberg isn't an option, he favors very strict gun control.
I'm willing to listen to both Sanders and Trump, there are a few issues that I'm willing to be flexible on. Taxes for example.
Gun control is not one of them. To me, it is the same as a politician wanting to restrict and licence "freedom of speech".
Re:shifted to corrupt union bosses, yes
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
And you actually believe the owners when they blamed the union? How touching.
What, you think they filed bankruptcy, converted it to a chapter 7 liquidation, all for... what? Negotiation tactics?
Do you really hear yourself? The business closed, liquidated, doesn't exist anymore... the assets and name were sold off at auction, the former people in charge aren't there anymore either.
The whole company is gone, poof, history. The union pushed and pushed and pushed... and lost...
Unions didn't lose their power in the past 30 years due to some magic fairy dust, they lost it by being greedy and stupid.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights does not make healthcare any less important.
I'm sorry you think that...
Let me try and make this plain as day.
You do not have the right to healthcare, but you do have the right to defend yourself.
Now before you type a reply to that, stop, and read it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because the FBI is so stupid they didn't think to try any of that...
My point is that the existing model falls apart when you apply it to the future "no one has to work, everyone has unlimited food and stuff and time".
You assume it will just continue the way it exists today. That is a rather risky presumption...
People who make lots of money don't tend to have time to raise ten kids. What happens when yo have money and free time?
What will really happen? Society will be so rich that it will decide to feed and house everyone on earth, just because.
And when people have nothing to do but have babies and we end up with 50 billion people, will that still be true?
100 billion?
Or do you plan to tell people who is allowed to have kids and who isn't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The past 30 years honestly doesn't look all that peaceful to me.
Frankly, if you think that major war is gone, well, I invite you to travel back to 1912, when many people said the same thing. Europe was ablaze in prosperity and growth, there had been no war for 2 generations, and the leaders of all the major nations were related and tied together in various ways.
What could go wrong?
But if you want more directly, the kamikaze was a fool's idea with limited impact, almost ineffective
I disagree with your assessment of the effectiveness of it, on the contrary, it was actually quite effective, considering the situation and balance of power that existed at that time.
Had it been used sooner, Japan might have won, they simply waited too long to employ it.
There is a reason we use guided missiles today rather than rockets or battleships with big guns, they are simply more effective. The Kamikaze was the first guided missile, and they were quite effective, sinking dozens of ships, damaging hundreds more, for the cost of about 4,500 airmen willing to give their lives.
And there's also the threatening. Kinda hard to resist when they'll shoot you and your family.
The irony is that Japan didn't generally have to use such tactics to convince people to do it, they were all volunteers. Japan had spent a long time building up a culture where dying for the Emperor was the highest and best good use of your life. Look at some of the latter battles of the war, count the number of people defending the islands, the number of dead, and the number captured. Those numbers are more extreme in terms of percentages than any other battlefield anywhere else in the world.
But many veteran officers and pilots in Japan? Resisted the idea, and found it repugnant. They didn't think it was glorious, they thought it was madness and suggested those who thought of it be the first.
They might have said that after the war, and there is always someone, somewhere, who says "I told you so", but the truth is, they saw the world differently than the west does. You have to take off your western glasses and understand that morality is just a point of view, the universe doesn't really care.
The timeframe involved since nuclear weapons isn't that long, and frankly I suspect you need to do some math, you might find your visions of peace and deathless conflict are colored by a lack of death in the west, not total deaths.
How many deaths in the Korean War? Vietnam? Iraq? Ok, put aside wars the US fought, how about India/Pakistan wars, Isreal/Everyone else, USSR/Afghanistan.
While it is true that we haven't had a world war since WWII, that doesn't mean that we haven't had tens of millions of deaths from war since then, they were just spread out among many conflicts.
There was plenty of war before that as well, WWI and WWII are perhaps outliers, hopefully never to be repeated, but they don't mean war has ended. It just means that major nations haven't directly fought for 70 years.
So what, that happened before those wars as well. Then people forget and do it all over again.
That is debatable... But you only replied to the second sentence, and ignored the first...
Arguably while war is all about winning, it's not at "all cost".
It isn't, because we've been winning for a long time... that changes when you're losing... Look at the Japanese 1944-45, with the Divine Wind and tell me they weren't willing to pay any price?
It took nuclear weapons to get them to see reason.
Even though war is a terrible and bloody affair, we as societies have constantly been moving towards more humane and less deadly conflict.
From your safe place behind a safe computer, you can say that.
Go ask the people in Syria if they feel like they are taking part in a "more humane and less deadly conflict".
You're kidding yourself if you think that is war. War is hell, and you don't win by "only kinda sorta almost fighting..." You win by so completely crushing your enemy that he puts up the white flag and says "you win, sorry for all that, let us know what the new rules are"
Anything less and it never really ends.
But invading would just set them all into Poncho Villa mode (now with meth and tequila).
Maybe... or maybe in 30 years they end up like Germany... who wasn't happy we invaded, but we did kick out their government and look how that turned out?
Ok, so we totally screwed up Iraq, but that is because GWB and his inner circle were clearly idiots. But it CAN be done right.
It will take decades, but they will sort it out.
And that would be fine, if they weren't bothering us. But they are, so they don't get decades.
I believe it was 'The Economist' that sorted the raid statistics against who was in charge of the police.
I am FULLY aware the police are worthless in Mexico. I'm not, and never have been, talking about the police. I'm talking about the Mexican Army, which has been reported to be far less corrupted than the police ever were.
If I were Google, I'd offer it to them for free. Just being in millions of cars is worth something.
Apple probably would want money however,
Well perhaps your normal politician can't. I could, because I don't give a damm. That is part of Trump's appeal, in case you didn't know, he doesn't appear to give a damm.
It is quite possible that you're right. I'd like to think even the drug lords are smart enough not to engage the US Army, but perhaps they aren't.
As for the Mexican President, he always has the choice to say that to Trump, at which point Trump can say, "Do you want out? Do you want my protection? Side with me, turn on the cartels, and you'll have US military protection against retaliation if you want it. You can say you invited us to help, you invited us in to crush these criminals. I'll put 10,000 troops around you and your family if I have to, you'll announce to the world that you have ASKED for American help in defeating this evil and that we will work together to rid ourselves of this menace."
And of course if all that you say is true, then perhaps we do need to clean up our southern border, it has been ignored too long.
I don't understand what point you're talking about.
Yea, I get that. I don't want to insult you by saying "reading is hard", since that is just rude. But it sure seems like you are having trouble reading what I'm writing.
2 million people being paid $10/hr (plus overhead) will cost FAR less in taxes than 20 million people paid $9/hr (plus less overhead).
Does that help?
Exactly! Utopia!
I hope you're joking, because I'd like someone to make sure the water keeps flowing, the power stays on, and the trash gets picked up. Who do you plan to have do that, when those people quit and go sit at home to collect their free money?
Society.
That sounds nice, but "society" is made up of all of us. Those "us" don't much care to work hard to pay for the lazy.
I hear you, not all GPS units are equal.
The one in my older 2012 Yukon was worthless, really terrible. They have gotten much better in the 2015 and later models, you can just talk to them now (mostly).
My 2014 Ford has the MyTouch system, which is ok, but not great. I'm looking forward to replacing it with something with Sync3, from the demos I've seen, voice search has taken a big leap forward.
---
Side note: I haven't figured out why the car companies don't just put Apple/Google in the cars. When I ask Siri to navigate somewhere, she is right on the money 99% of the time.
Germany does have one benefit, they tend to have a strong worth ethic...
Too many Americans are fat and lazy and just don't want to work.
Yes, yes, I know, broad brush... but I see it every day...
Yes, exactly! instead of 2 million people whose lives are made less enjoyable, you'd have 20 million people whose lives are made more enjoyable!
Who exactly do you plan to have pay for that?
Thanks, but I'm not much interested in working hard, paying taxes, just so 20 million people can sit at home and do nothing.
If that becomes an option, perhaps I'll do that too. Then everyone does it, and no one works.
THAT is the point you're missing. You assume that the rest of us are happy to pay for all those people not working. We're not.
Diplomatic actions have consequences.
Yes they do, but doing nothing does as well. As I said, I didn't say it nicely, but I don't have to, I'm posting to Slashdot.
In reality, I believe that Trump knows that he would have to use a bit more tact than that.
You write we are powerful we can force Mexico to build a wall.
That isn't actually what I said. What I said is that we can make Mexico an offer. Let them build the wall with us, or let us do it on our own, on our own terms.
For all of Trump's bluster about "Mexico is going to pay for the wall", clearly the cost is up for discussion. Trump can sit down with the President of Mexico and say, "Look, you have a problem with drug cartels, we have a problem with illegal immigration. Lets work together to solve this. We'll split the cost of a wall, joint US and Mexican armed forces will patrol it, and in return, US Army forces will go into Mexico working WITH Mexican Army forces to fight the drug cartels and restore order to your nation. If we do this, we'll also work towards immigration reform to make it easier for people to come and go across the border, for cross border investment (factories, jobs, etc) and to enable familes to get back together."
That is the "lube" option.
The "no lube" option is far less desirable and would involve US Army forces doing all of the above, but without working with the Mexican Army. Now I imagine the Mexican Army might consider defending their land, and they would lose.
How would you like it? Friends, or not friends?
or signs an alliance with China or Putin?
China and Putin are far away, Mexico is right there. We also control the oceans on both sides of Mexico.
Russia took over Crimea because it was right there next to them, because it was far more important to them than it is to us. Ukraine also borders Russia and is clearly not an area we want to send US Army troops. Mexico is the same, but in reverse.
or devolves into Syria and now you have 120 million people trying to cross the border
Not even remotely the same situation, because we aren't trying to oppress the Mexican people, and neither is their government. Bashar al-Assad is...
Those are the many reasons why a play yard bully taunt wouldn't work.
You keep using that term. It doesn't really apply when the "bully" has the ability to back up his words.
Trump will try the carrot approach first, he is no fool, you work with people (he has done that all his life, you have to get large building projects approved). If you can't, then you work against them to replace them or push them aside to get what you want.
If you had asked me 5 years ago about basic income, I'd have called you a "commie".
Today? Not so much. Not because I don't see it as socialism, but rather because I see that we ALREADY are rather socialist, we just did it the most inefficient way possible.
There are SO MANY government welfare programs of all types, the amount of money spent administering "the money" is nuts.
I suspect that if you took all the social security money, food stamp money, section 8 housing money, WIC, and the hundred other programs big and small, and put it all together and turned it into a monthly check, you might find that a basic income is not as "expensive" as you'd think.
I haven't done the numbers, but my gut tells me it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the "naysayers" suggest.
---
You're right of course, the "ideological feelings" issue is a hard one, and people's feelings are real, even if misguided. People like to believe what they believe and don't change easily.
You support suboptimal policies, simply to satisfy your need to see people "work for it", even despite the increased societal costs.
I understand your point of view, but it is misguided...
Bear with me here, I have a point:
Consider that if we do what you suggest, replace those labors with machines for $1/hr and pay people $9/hr to stay home, then they might just stay home forever. If you give people the option to stay home and watch TV for $9/hr or go get a private job for $15/hr, many people will take the $9/hr and sit at home.
The point of the "busy work" is not to be productive, it is to make it less desirable than getting a private sector job. The thinking goes, "well crap, if I have to work anyway, I might as well get $5/hr more for it, I'll go get a private job".
If the option becomes, "gosh, I can do NOTHING and get $9/hr, or go get a job for $15/hr, hell, I'll take the $9/hr for NOTHING".
At $10/hr for busy work, you might have 2 million people doing it, at $9/hr for sitting at home, you might have 20 million people doing it.
That is the reasons for it, not to "make them work for it".
I agree with many of your points... however, there is a moral question here...
"Are you allowed to sell your labor for any price you like, or only for the government approved price?"
In other words, is your only choice "sell your labor for a minimum price, or you can't sell it at all?"
Imagine if we passed a law saying TVs had to cost at least $500? If cars had to cost at least $25,000...
That is what minimum wage really is, a law saying that either you sell your labor for X price, or you can't sell it at all. It is a limitation on your freedom and right to work for any wage you see fit.
---
Now, that being said, my above points do NOT invalidate your comments about low wages being a subsidy for Walmart, since you're quite correct that they get government benefits at those wages, and thus we're subsidizing that low wage.
The only way my point above works is if you remove those government supports. But we aren't likely to do that.
So, would I support raising the min wage to $15/hr? Yea, probably. I just don't like the moral implications of it and to go along with it, you have to address what you'll do with all the newly unemployed people.
Right now, in my office, we have a girl who answers the phone. It is the easiest job in the world, she simply answers the phone, directs visitors to where they need to go, and otherwise gets coffee for the boss and keeps the break area clean. She gets paid $8/hr.
That job isn't worth $15/hr. We might still want someone to answer the phone, but now we will have to come up with additional duties to justify the pay, and the 19 year old girl who is currently sitting there isn't qualified for them. So she would lose her job, to be replaced either by technology, or by someone more qualified.
And yes, I get that over time, all wages would slowly rise, making that job now "worth" $15/hr, assuming all prices and wages rose along with the minimum. But that would take time and until it happened, she would still lose the job she has.
With Trump is different. We have no clue what he stands on, and "I'm going to bully the world to do what I want" is a play yard tantrum, not realistic policy, in spite of what you write above.
Again, you deny what I write because you don't like it, because it isn't politically correct to say it, and because "it isn't nice".
What part of what I wrote would not be possible for a President Trump to do (assuming he had some level of popular support of course)? You call it a "play yard tantrum". Is it? When the person doing it is Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world?
Do you honestly not think we are unable to send the US Army to the border, secure some amount of buffer zone and make it a secure area?
Now, will Trump do that? I have no idea (probably not)... but if he is President, it is FAR from a "play yard tantrum"...
Lastly, the problem with immigration can be solved in an instant if you really want to: put strong penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants.
Remind me which of the people currently running for President have suggested that as their platform?
Since the answer is none, perhaps Trump is the only person who has proposed anything that might do SOMETHING... as opposed to all the hot air from everyone else.
Bloomberg isn't an option, he favors very strict gun control.
I'm willing to listen to both Sanders and Trump, there are a few issues that I'm willing to be flexible on. Taxes for example.
Gun control is not one of them. To me, it is the same as a politician wanting to restrict and licence "freedom of speech".
And you actually believe the owners when they blamed the union? How touching.
What, you think they filed bankruptcy, converted it to a chapter 7 liquidation, all for... what? Negotiation tactics?
Do you really hear yourself? The business closed, liquidated, doesn't exist anymore... the assets and name were sold off at auction, the former people in charge aren't there anymore either.
The whole company is gone, poof, history. The union pushed and pushed and pushed... and lost...
Unions didn't lose their power in the past 30 years due to some magic fairy dust, they lost it by being greedy and stupid.
Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights does not make healthcare any less important.
I'm sorry you think that...
Let me try and make this plain as day.
You do not have the right to healthcare, but you do have the right to defend yourself.
Now before you type a reply to that, stop, and read it again.