@WarChiefZeke: Who called white people "dogs" and "genetically inferior"? I've heard anti-white sentiment before, but that kind of rhetoric is far more screwed-up than any I've seen before.
I'm skeptical that white folks currently have much to fear in terms of oppression, since we're still the majority, we'll also be the plurality for decades into the future, nonwhite folks have been pretty tolerant of us thus far (most anti-white sentiment, from what I can tell, comes from white liberals rather than people of color), and the Constitution pretty much bans any form of anti-white legislation or policymaking. Congress could attempt to pass that kind of law, but the Supreme Court is going to be disproportionately white long into the future for historical reasons, so I doubt those kinds of laws would survive Supreme Court review.
That said, I'm recognizing a new point I haven't heard anyone make just yet. If anti-immigrant sentiment from Trump "laid the groundwork" for hate crimes and legitimized the family separation policy--that is, if words pave the way for action--then wouldn't anti-white rhetoric also "lay the groundwork" for anti-white policies?
In the past, I've dismissed the fears of anti-white persecution primarily because, to paraphrase my own words, "It's not actual discrimination; it's just annoying rhetoric." I think a lot of liberals would say there's a pretty big gap between saying something negative about white folks and actively persecuting them.
But wouldn't it be possible for us to eventually bridge that gap?
After all, I was one of a number of people who thought Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric never would have resulted in something as hideous as the family separation policy. And yet, the administration did bridge that gap, and plenty of folks have even defended the policy long afterwards.
It's definitely debatable whether anti-white sentiment could be a real problem anytime soon. But isn't it possible it could be a real problem in the long term, 20 or 30 years from now?
I'm not quite sure if that's realistic. It still seems a little far-fetched because it's so at odds with our current society, which is pretty white-friendly in almost every dimension (even with affirmative action, whites are more likely to get into college than most peoples of color). And, importantly, not every word translates into real action. But if anti-immigrant rhetoric does lay the ground for anti-immigrant discrimination, the same would apply for anti-anything rhetoric.
What do you guys think? We might not deem anti-immigrant and anti-white rhetoric as equal in every respect, but does that same principle still apply to both?
When pointing out the anti white tendencies of the left, someone will inevitably come in and deflect with some variation of the "your ancestors were bad" line.
As they continue to put overt anti white racists into positions of influence and power, the Sarah Jeongs of the world, and as they continue to gain more political power through demographic shifts, it's only a matter of time before overt anti white laws come into play, besides the simple ones we already have, making white kids have to work harder than everyone else because of their race through affirmative action laws, and making it so all black and all other minority schools can exist, but not all white (unless this is not the case, and such a place exists, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't and can't). The laws are already there, racial discrimination has legal precedent, and they are just going to get worse.
As of now, the anti white place in society is mostly cultural, and wields enormous influence, having devoted support from universities (they teach it), the media (they uplift it's devotees), and the D's (they preach it) alike. They have carved out a space of privilege and influence for themselves in society, able to dictate the acceptable limits of discussion, which always allows for horrible things to be said about whites and everybody else gets the highest respect. It doesn't take much thought to see where this leads, and it astonishes me that all the white liberals that go along with this don't realize that they will simply be eaten last. It's already happening.
But of course, some want to make this whole issue a fictional "anti white ideology vs. slavery and segregation", as though this is the choice we are actually faced with.
This is so far out from what I've experienced in life, that I'm almost compelled to ask about the color of the sky on your planet. I'm a member of a multiracial family, and I've seen how much harder my black family members have had to work to get where they are. If you are so far gone that you actually think that white people have to work harder to reach the same place in life as black people ...
I've been sitting here for several minutes and I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Frankly my reaction to your posts was the same jaw-drop I got when I first watched a flat-earther's youtube video and realized he was 100% serious.
I mean if people are already complaining about Sarah Jeong somehow making life harder for white people they've already departed from the reality based community.
The truth is that Sarah has in fact harmed someone with her journalism (and not her tweets), but that someone is neither American nor white.
What do you guys think? We might not deem anti-immigrant and anti-white rhetoric as equal in every respect, but does that same principle still apply to both?
Trash-talking any group of people (regardless of the reason) makes the one doing the talking appear trashy.
Trash-talking any group of people because of their skin color and/or ethnicity makes the one doing the talking a racist, according to the definition of the word...even if the person doing the talking is black and they are talking about white people.
Ultimately, human beings simply do not like other human beings very much. Fortunately, we are not required to like each other but we do have to live with each other.
What do you guys think? We might not deem anti-immigrant and anti-white rhetoric as equal in every respect, but does that same principle still apply to both?
Trash-talking any group of people (regardless of the reason) makes the one doing the talking appear trashy.
Trash-talking any group of people because of their skin color and/or ethnicity makes the one doing the talking a racist, according to the definition of the word...even if the person doing the talking is black and they are talking about white people.
Ultimately, human beings simply do not like other human beings very much. Fortunately, we are not required to like each other but we do have to live with each other.
That's great and all but what about the Nazis and pedophiles groups? We can't 'trash talk' them because we don't want to offend them? Yeah I just don't know about that. People that hold deplorable views should be prepared to accept that most reasonable people don't accept their views.
When pointing out the anti white tendencies of the left, someone will inevitably come in and deflect with some variation of the "your ancestors were bad" line.
As they continue to put overt anti white racists into positions of influence and power, the Sarah Jeongs of the world, and as they continue to gain more political power through demographic shifts, it's only a matter of time before overt anti white laws come into play, besides the simple ones we already have, making white kids have to work harder than everyone else because of their race through affirmative action laws, and making it so all black and all other minority schools can exist, but not all white (unless this is not the case, and such a place exists, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't and can't). The laws are already there, racial discrimination has legal precedent, and they are just going to get worse.
As of now, the anti white place in society is mostly cultural, and wields enormous influence, having devoted support from universities (they teach it), the media (they uplift it's devotees), and the D's (they preach it) alike. They have carved out a space of privilege and influence for themselves in society, able to dictate the acceptable limits of discussion, which always allows for horrible things to be said about whites and everybody else gets the highest respect. It doesn't take much thought to see where this leads, and it astonishes me that all the white liberals that go along with this don't realize that they will simply be eaten last. It's already happening.
But of course, some want to make this whole issue a fictional "anti white ideology vs. slavery and segregation", as though this is the choice we are actually faced with.
This is so far out from what I've experienced in life, that I'm almost compelled to ask about the color of the sky on your planet. I'm a member of a multiracial family, and I've seen how much harder my black family members have had to work to get where they are. If you are so far gone that you actually think that white people have to work harder to reach the same place in life as black people ...
I've been sitting here for several minutes and I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Frankly my reaction to your posts was the same jaw-drop I got when I first watched a flat-earther's youtube video and realized he was 100% serious.
In regards to this, I don't have a multi-racial family per se, bit I do have a multi-racial cousin whose father was black. Now, I grew up in the same town she did (because my aunt eventually married someone she met while visiting us). About halfway through high school, she switched schools because of how she was being treated and traveled 40 miles round trip to a larger town instead. Now, when my aunt initially told me she was being singled out because of her race, I (who was maybe 19 at the time) dismissed this. After all, I knew and liked these teachers, and I didn't believe they would do that.
But I wasn't my cousin, and I have no idea what subtle looks and comments she was getting. How would I?? I was a tall, white kid who grew up in a town with nearly all white people. My cousin was practically the LONE exception to that rule. In retrospect, I'm ashamed for even for a very short time for dismissing the reasons they pulled her from my school. Maybe the teachers themselves didn't know what they were doing. But they were doing it all the same.
Who called white people "dogs" and "genetically inferior"? I've heard anti-white sentiment before, but that kind of rhetoric is far more screwed-up than any I've seen before.
That said, I'm recognizing a new point I haven't heard anyone make just yet. If anti-immigrant sentiment from Trump "laid the groundwork" for hate crimes and legitimized the family separation policy--that is, if words pave the way for action--then wouldn't anti-white rhetoric also "lay the groundwork" for anti-white policies?
Of course, by their own logic, this is pretty air tight. And this is exactly what i'm saying.
Every prediction is that the white majority of this country is only going to last another couple of decades. It's more or less inevitable.
Anti white rhetoric not only has a place, it's been growing over the past couple of years. I would be less surprised if this rhetoric wasn't put into place policy wise, in some form, once they have total power.
Oh, and those were Sarah Jeongs words. She didn't use that phrase specifically (genetically inferior), but you can look at it for yourself and tell me if i'm taking it out of context. Look up the rest of them, there's a lot, for good measure. It's just non stop. I'm sure someone will try to say "just a joke bro", but once you make the same joke a hundred times, one stops laughing and starts assuming you mean it. Not that this would be an excuse anyway.
"Ms Jeong wrote in one tweet from July 2014: "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
One online critic posted a selection of Ms Jeong's other tweets, which contain obscenities.
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she said in December 2014."
The whole premise is that white people (just them, only them) are unconsciously racist, blah blah blah, feel guilty, end "whiteness". This isn't education but indoctrination into self hate. A justification for their own coming second class status. Insert *change my mind* meme.
And what do the students themselves think is the problem of whiteness? Why, white people, of course! But since you can't say "why white people suck" out loud, you have to phrase it as "The problems of whiteness"
black performers apparently don't like crowds that are too white. this is presented as stunning and brave. need i go on?
"but the “overwhelming whiteness” of Edinburgh festival fringe can be off-putting to potential performers and punters, according to Jessica Brough, the founder of Fringe of Colour."
This is so far out from what I've experienced in life, that I'm almost compelled to ask about the color of the sky on your planet. I'm a member of a multiracial family, and I've seen how much harder my black family members have had to work to get where they are. If you are so far gone that you actually think that white people have to work harder to reach the same place in life as black people ...
I've been sitting here for several minutes and I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Frankly my reaction to your posts was the same jaw-drop I got when I first watched a flat-earther's youtube video and realized he was 100% serious.
You lost me at flat earther. It's a clear sign you aren't taking me seriously and so I have no reason to take you seriously. But, since your only point here is that you are surprised and think i'm crazy, without any sort of reasoning, there's not a lot to dismiss in the first place. We can agree to be on different planets. People who enjoy being cruel to whites just don't exist, in fact, and certainly don't get institutional support. After all, you have never personally experienced it, and thus it can not be a problem now or at any point in time or place in the country.
That's great and all but what about the Nazis and pedophiles groups? We can't 'trash talk' them because we don't want to offend them? Yeah I just don't know about that. People that hold deplorable views should be prepared to accept that most reasonable people don't accept their views.
One does not need to disparage the groups you mention--they do that to themselves via their actions. The problem with "depolrable views" is that it is too subjective. Most reasonable people do not accept the view that the minimum wage should be $15 per hour--should the people who do believe that need to accept the fact that their view is deplorable?
Most reasonable people do not accept the view that the minimum wage should be $15 per hour
For the record, most Americans support the minimum wage being raised to $15 per hour. Obviously it's your prerogative to dismiss many or all of them as unreasonable.
When pointing out the anti white tendencies of the left, someone will inevitably come in and deflect with some variation of the "your ancestors were bad" line.
As they continue to put overt anti white racists into positions of influence and power, the Sarah Jeongs of the world, and as they continue to gain more political power through demographic shifts, it's only a matter of time before overt anti white laws come into play, besides the simple ones we already have, making white kids have to work harder than everyone else because of their race through affirmative action laws, and making it so all black and all other minority schools can exist, but not all white (unless this is not the case, and such a place exists, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't and can't). The laws are already there, racial discrimination has legal precedent, and they are just going to get worse.
As of now, the anti white place in society is mostly cultural, and wields enormous influence, having devoted support from universities (they teach it), the media (they uplift it's devotees), and the D's (they preach it) alike. They have carved out a space of privilege and influence for themselves in society, able to dictate the acceptable limits of discussion, which always allows for horrible things to be said about whites and everybody else gets the highest respect. It doesn't take much thought to see where this leads, and it astonishes me that all the white liberals that go along with this don't realize that they will simply be eaten last. It's already happening.
But of course, some want to make this whole issue a fictional "anti white ideology vs. slavery and segregation", as though this is the choice we are actually faced with.
He wasn't saying "your ancestors were bad". He was saying black people actually suffered. And to compare getting criticism -- mostly online, where you can choose to seek it out -- is to not understand what actually happened in history.
Regarding the minimum wage I think Yang has the best take on this. Raising the minimum wage is well and good but there will be a ton of people who are out of work in the future, and raising the minimum wage won't do much for them. I am kinda sold on the idea of a UBI given the current trends of technological unemployment coming for a lot of different sectors. It will be hard to adjust otherwise.
Well, this is how you shift the Overton Window on a discussion. 3 months ago I posted the video of Trump's rally where he used the word "invasion" at least half a dozen times before a rally-goer yells out "shoot them", Trump smirks, and his crowd erupts in laughter. I said someone was going to take them up on their offer, soon, and was, for all intents and purposes, ignored. Fine, whatever. More hysterical Trump hate doncha know.
Fast forward to this weekend. It happens. We get an iron-clad reasoning behind a targeted murder spree, which just so happens to be the EXACT scenario that was treated as such a hilarious aside (that should never been taken seriously, because that's the get out of jail free card for everything, unless apparently it's a leftie columnist on Twitter, who magically we are supposed to take seriously, so the rules are unclear) at Trump's rally in what was, I think, Florida.
And where are we 48 hours later?? On one hand, it's "shame on you for spending so much time pointing out where this was heading, if only people like you hadn't done so, this could have been prevented". On on the other we have a targeted massacre of quote unquote "Mexicans" turning into a debate about the hypothetical tyranny that is about to take place when more people of color attain positions of power, which just so happens to be one of the exact fears the shooter had. Just so we're clear what group of people should be at the center of concern and debate in any given conversation. In a sense, the shooter's act has been REWARDED, from the President holding gun reform hostage to immigration demands to a national debate about whether white nationalism is a legitimate political refuge in a country with a legacy of slavery. Fantastic.
Lost down the memory-hole (both the fact that it happened at all and the recent conclusion)?? The guy who attempted to assassinate practically every prominent national Democrat, who later admitted to having been radicalized at Trump rallies, got a mere 20 years in prison. When two of his targets were former Presidents and one was 3rd in the line of succession. Richard Reid's shoe bomb didn't go off either, but somehow I don't think he's getting out after 20 years. But the MAGA bomber?? Yeah, of course HE can get out one day.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
We already have a minimum wage. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long, long, long time (Which of course is 100% Trump, right?). So we know it doesnt just arbitrarily destroy the economy. We can negotiate the value, but the federally managed minimum wage as decided in 1991 probably isnt the perfect number, considering how the economy has changed.
Most reasonable people do not accept the view that the minimum wage should be $15 per hour
For the record, most Americans support the minimum wage being raised to $15 per hour. Obviously it's your prerogative to dismiss many or all of them as unreasonable.
A majority of respondents to a poll does not equal a majority of Americans.
If I were a corporation I would definitely push for a $15 per hour minimum wage. That way, I can cut some people and automate their jobs where possible, then trim hours to make up the difference--oh, you were working 40 hours this week but now you are working only 35. If I am an unscrupulous contractor it gets even better--why should I pay you $15 when I can hire some guy who waltzed across the border two days ago and he'll work for $10? Since less than 4% of all hourly jobs actually pay the minimum raising the minimum would not positively impact that many people. Right now, Wal-Mart and Target in this area already pay $13, so anyone working for the absolute minimum needs to rethink their strategy.
Most people who support $15 are unreasonable, though. What logical reason is there for paying a completely unskilled laborer $15 per hour? The minimum wage is not designed to support a family of 4; it is for high school students, semi-retired elderly people, or working adults who need a second part- or full-time job to pad their budget. Why not make the minimum $20, or $25?
The *first* thing that will happen if the minimum wage rises precipitously is that prices across the board will rise. We have covered all that before and the "fight for 15" folks didn't understand it then, either.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
We already have a minimum wage. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long, long, long time (Which of course is 100% Trump, right?). So we know it doesnt just arbitrarily destroy the economy. We can negotiate the value, but the federally managed minimum wage as decided in 1991 probably isnt the perfect number, considering how the economy has changed.
That's great and all but what about the Nazis and pedophiles groups? We can't 'trash talk' them because we don't want to offend them? Yeah I just don't know about that. People that hold deplorable views should be prepared to accept that most reasonable people don't accept their views.
One does not need to disparage the groups you mention--they do that to themselves via their actions. The problem with "depolrable views" is that it is too subjective. Most reasonable people do not accept the view that the minimum wage should be $15 per hour--should the people who do believe that need to accept the fact that their view is deplorable?
Believing that minimum wage should be too low for someone to live on is pretty deplorable, though. This is not even subjective, as the currently extremely low minimum wage even has a body count, and the claims that raising minimum wage would be economically hazardous aren't remotely true.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
We already have a minimum wage. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long, long, long time (Which of course is 100% Trump, right?). So we know it doesnt just arbitrarily destroy the economy. We can negotiate the value, but the federally managed minimum wage as decided in 1991 probably isnt the perfect number, considering how the economy has changed.
The Mises Institute is pretty biased toward US libertarianism and the far right. Of course they oppose the notion that people deserve to be paid enough to live on.
We already have a minimum wage. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long, long, long time (Which of course is 100% Trump, right?). So we know it doesnt just arbitrarily destroy the economy. We can negotiate the value, but the federally managed minimum wage as decided in 1991 probably isnt the perfect number, considering how the economy has changed.
The unemployment rate has almost nothing to do with the occupant of the Oval Office, whether the rate is good or bad.
I don't disagree that the current Federal number is outdated and should probably be raised some, but as I note only 4% of all hourly jobs actually pay the minimum...except for food service people--they don't even get the minimum, which sucks and is why we always try to tip generously in cash so it goes directly into their pocket. Anyway, unless I want to empty trash cans and clean bathrooms as a part-time job--which I have done before--I would have to try and find a job which actually pays the minimum. I mentioned Wal-Mart, who pays $13 in this area, and they have a horrible track record of abusing employees.
I didn't say that raising the minimum wage would destroy the economy; even the Chinese manipulating the yuan didn't do that. All I said was that it would lead to higher prices because that would be a lot of inflationary pressure--if people are making more money then vendors can charge more, and they have to charge more because they are having to pay their employees more.
$15 is on its way out the door, though. The new minimum will be $20--there have already been calls for that. Who was that? Talib? I don't recall. But we have to ask the question: if unskilled labor is worth $20 then why not $25? Who gets to set that arbitrary number?
Believing that minimum wage should be too low for someone to live on is pretty deplorable, though.
No rational person should *want* to make only the lowest amount possible. If you are sick and tired of making a pittance then go get some job training or start taking classes at a community college. Sign up for only one computer course, which usually culminates in receiving the A+ certification--now you can get a call-center-type job making $15. The opportunities to improve one's position are out there, if only people look for them and take advantage of them.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
We already have a minimum wage. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long, long, long time (Which of course is 100% Trump, right?). So we know it doesnt just arbitrarily destroy the economy. We can negotiate the value, but the federally managed minimum wage as decided in 1991 probably isnt the perfect number, considering how the economy has changed.
The Mises Institute is pretty biased toward US libertarianism and the far right. Of course they oppose the notion that people deserve to be paid enough to live on.
Wrong, did you read the article in question? Minimum wage isn't about "minimum to survive", is to cut those of low productivity from the job market.
No rational person should *want* to make only the lowest amount possible. If you are sick and tired of making a pittance then go get some job training or start taking classes at a community college. Sign up for only one computer course, which usually culminates in receiving the A+ certification--now you can get a call-center-type job making $15. The opportunities to improve one's position are out there, if only people look for them and take advantage of them.
Sorry, I'm not going to even entertain the deplorable notion that getting paid a living wage is an individual problem individuals must solve for themselves in a society where wages have been flat for everyone but the wealthiest over the past few decades.
Also I see you completely ignored the fact that the current system has a body count.
Wrong, did you read the article in question? Minimum wage isn't about "minimum to survive", is to cut those of low productivity from the job market.
If you cherry pick history then sure.
The emphasis on productivity as something to exploit from people while paying them as little as possible is a capitalist problem, and thus not a problem that the Mises Institute would ever want to actually solve. They're trying to fuel the notion that a livable minimum wage now is bad.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
You are not correct. They rejected increasing it but they have a minimum wage equivalent in fact it's one of the highest in the world.
Switzerland has a government-mandated minimum wage, and no worker in Switzerland can be paid less then this mandatory minimum rate of pay. Employers in Switzerland who fail to pay the Minimum Wage may be subject to punishment by Switzerland's government.
How does Switzerland's minimum wage compare to the minimum wage in other countries?
Switzerland's yearly minimum wage is $15,457.00 in International Currency. International Currency is a measure of currency based on the value of the United States dollar in 2009.
There are ONLY 8 countries with a higher Minimum Wage then Switzerland, and Switzerland is in the top 4 percent of all countries based on the yearly minimum wage rate.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
You are not correct. They rejected increasing it but they have a minimum wage equivalent in fact it's one of the highest in the world.
Switzerland has a government-mandated minimum wage, and no worker in Switzerland can be paid less then this mandatory minimum rate of pay. Employers in Switzerland who fail to pay the Minimum Wage may be subject to punishment by Switzerland's government.
How does Switzerland's minimum wage compare to the minimum wage in other countries?
Switzerland's yearly minimum wage is $15,457.00 in International Currency. International Currency is a measure of currency based on the value of the United States dollar in 2009.
There are ONLY 8 countries with a higher Minimum Wage then Switzerland, and Switzerland is in the top 4 percent of all countries based on the yearly minimum wage rate.
The emphasis on productivity as something to exploit from people while paying them as little as possible is a capitalist problem, and thus not a problem that the Mises Institute would ever want to actually solve. They're trying to fuel the notion that a livable minimum wage now is bad.
And is not bad? Any time of intervention is bad. Lets suppose that i wanna work in exchange for only stocks of the company, why the state should prohibit it? "but the company can fail", so are you saying that the state should protect me from myself? This is threat state like god.
What the state needs to do in order to people lose faith on the state? Killing thousands of times more than the Black Death in peace time isn't enough? The aristocratic old state was far less evil than the modern "rational" state.
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
You are not correct. They rejected increasing it but they have a minimum wage equivalent in fact it's one of the highest in the world.
Switzerland has a government-mandated minimum wage, and no worker in Switzerland can be paid less then this mandatory minimum rate of pay. Employers in Switzerland who fail to pay the Minimum Wage may be subject to punishment by Switzerland's government.
How does Switzerland's minimum wage compare to the minimum wage in other countries?
Switzerland's yearly minimum wage is $15,457.00 in International Currency. International Currency is a measure of currency based on the value of the United States dollar in 2009.
There are ONLY 8 countries with a higher Minimum Wage then Switzerland, and Switzerland is in the top 4 percent of all countries based on the yearly minimum wage rate.
Thank you for correcting the record on this. Again, I encourage folks to please DOUBLE CHECK your facts before posting here. You shouldn't be able to be corrected by a quick google search.
And when your facts are in error -- none of us are perfect -- acknowledge this. Discussion here and frankly everywhere will improve vastly if people follow this simple courtesy.
In that spirit I must acknowledge that @Mathsorcerer is correct with his incisive comment: "A majority of respondents to a poll does not equal a majority of Americans." Mea culpa. In the future I will refrain from from making assertions about public opinion that are not backed up by direct surveys of every person.
And is not bad? Any time of intervention is bad. Lets suppose that i wanna work in exchange for only stocks of the company, why the state should prohibit it? "but the company can fail", so are you saying that the state should protect me from myself? This is threat state like god.
What the state needs to do in order to people lose faith on the state? Killing thousands of times more than the Black Death in peace time isn't enough? The aristocratic old state was far less evil than the modern "rational" state.
Letting capitalist business run unfettered without intervention and regulation is bad. That way lies factory workers losing their jaws to white phosphorous or radiation, workers trapped inside the Triangle Shirtwaist factory while it burned down around them, and child labor.
If you think what governments have done is evil (but your barometer for this is profoundly useless as you think Bolsonaro is good for some reason), then wait until you see what the fossil fuel industry premeditatedly did to the climate.
But the reality is that big business such as you defend is extremely dependent on government intervention to function even as it does now. In the US, most national politicians are beholden to at least some big business or other, to insure that their interests are taken care of.
Also, in your first paragraph? You assembled a straw man right there in front of everyone, and then asked me to defend it - could you not do that?
Letting capitalist business run unfettered without intervention and regulation is bad. That way lies factory workers losing their jaws to white phosphorous or radiation, workers trapped inside the Triangle Shirtwaist factory while it burned down around them, and child labor.
If your pollution is damaging other person propriety, you should pay for that. Same with your own workers. About child labor, people talk about child labor as it is an "capitalist thing", when children worked hard during communist regimes, and worked hard since the tribal societies. In fact capitalism allowed an higher productivity that allowed children to stop working.
If you think what governments have done is evil (but your barometer for this is profoundly useless as you think Bolsonaro is good for some reason), then wait until you see what the fossil fuel industry premeditatedly did to the climate.
The most pollution happens in Asia and Africa. Regions with traditional big government. The biggest disaster to the nature happened during communism, in Chernobyl. An the government tried to hide it. The best thing that the government can do is to cut taxes and regulations on electric cars and let the market develop an green energy
But the reality is that big business such as you defend is extremely dependent on government intervention to function even as it does now. In the US, most national politicians are beholden to at least some big business or other, to insure that their interests are taken care of.
I don't defend big business. In fact, many of then are responsible for the state growth and small companies do an much better job at attending the costumers demand. But if the state " insure that their interests are taken care of", increase the state power is increase the big business power.
Talking about minimum wage, an big company automate, can move to an cheaper country. The small business will be heavily impacted by it.
Who called white people "dogs" and "genetically inferior"? I've heard anti-white sentiment before, but that kind of rhetoric is far more screwed-up than any I've seen before.
That said, I'm recognizing a new point I haven't heard anyone make just yet. If anti-immigrant sentiment from Trump "laid the groundwork" for hate crimes and legitimized the family separation policy--that is, if words pave the way for action--then wouldn't anti-white rhetoric also "lay the groundwork" for anti-white policies?
Of course, by their own logic, this is pretty air tight. And this is exactly what i'm saying.
Every prediction is that the white majority of this country is only going to last another couple of decades. It's more or less inevitable.
Anti white rhetoric not only has a place, it's been growing over the past couple of years. I would be less surprised if this rhetoric wasn't put into place policy wise, in some form, once they have total power.
Oh, and those were Sarah Jeongs words. She didn't use that phrase specifically (genetically inferior), but you can look at it for yourself and tell me if i'm taking it out of context. Look up the rest of them, there's a lot, for good measure. It's just non stop. I'm sure someone will try to say "just a joke bro", but once you make the same joke a hundred times, one stops laughing and starts assuming you mean it. Not that this would be an excuse anyway.
"Ms Jeong wrote in one tweet from July 2014: "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
One online critic posted a selection of Ms Jeong's other tweets, which contain obscenities.
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she said in December 2014."
The whole premise is that white people (just them, only them) are unconsciously racist, blah blah blah, feel guilty, end "whiteness". This isn't education but indoctrination into self hate. A justification for their own coming second class status. Insert *change my mind* meme.
And what do the students themselves think is the problem of whiteness? Why, white people, of course! But since you can't say "why white people suck" out loud, you have to phrase it as "The problems of whiteness"
black performers apparently don't like crowds that are too white. this is presented as stunning and brave. need i go on?
"but the “overwhelming whiteness” of Edinburgh festival fringe can be off-putting to potential performers and punters, according to Jessica Brough, the founder of Fringe of Colour."
This is so far out from what I've experienced in life, that I'm almost compelled to ask about the color of the sky on your planet. I'm a member of a multiracial family, and I've seen how much harder my black family members have had to work to get where they are. If you are so far gone that you actually think that white people have to work harder to reach the same place in life as black people ...
I've been sitting here for several minutes and I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Frankly my reaction to your posts was the same jaw-drop I got when I first watched a flat-earther's youtube video and realized he was 100% serious.
You lost me at flat earther. It's a clear sign you aren't taking me seriously and so I have no reason to take you seriously. But, since your only point here is that you are surprised and think i'm crazy, without any sort of reasoning, there's not a lot to dismiss in the first place. We can agree to be on different planets. People who enjoy being cruel to whites just don't exist, in fact, and certainly don't get institutional support. After all, you have never personally experienced it, and thus it can not be a problem now or at any point in time or place in the country.
In case I wasn't clear, the thing I'm calling crazy is your assertion that white people have a harder time reaching their goals in life than black people do. And yes I think to believe that, you'd have to ignore just as much evidence as flat-earthers do.
And I've "never personally experienced" what exactly? Someone saying mean things on twitter about a group I identify with? We're both white, so if she's saying those things about you, she's saying them about me too. Why again should I care? I didn't care about those who called me a race-traitor, or said I was stealing their women, or even the five-percenter who said I had a "black soul".
Have you ever actually experienced discrimination? Had a racial slur painted on your shop? Been denied a loan because the house is in a [white] neighborhood? Had your clothes stolen because "[white people] shouldn't have nice things like that"? (and on and on and on) Anything at all beyond mean words on the Internet?
The other casualty of raising the minimum wage is anybody on a fixed income (mostly retirees on pensions). Prices will inevitably go up. Multi-national corporations that leftists are supposedly against will make out like bandits if the real dollar value of the pensions they pay out is devalued. There's a reason that most large corporations are all for raising minimum wages and government health-care. It gets them off the hook for most of their legacy expenses. I'll bet they love Yang's $1000/month for everybody too. Hell, let's make it $5000/month. I want mine on a roller though for reasons I've already mentioned...
For what it's worth, the minimum wage was, from its earliest days, intended to be a living wage. It was originally designed for factory workers who were not making a living wage despite working full time--hence "minimum" wage.
If we want to reject that purpose and say there is a new reason to have a minimum wage besides allowing people to live a normal life, that's another story. But that's the original purpose of the minimum wage. It wasn't just there to lift up teenagers and fast food workers; it was to establish a living wage for people at the lowest-paying jobs of the time.
It would be great if the various minimum wage workers of the United States just got higher-paying jobs. The thing is, that's not actually happening in real life, and while we may complain about that not happening, we have to wrestle with the reality we have; not the reality we'd like.
It would be great if people didn't let their homes catch on fire. But they do, so the government provides funding for fire departments. We deem that a problem, so we provide a solution. It would be great if people who made $8 an hour made $10 instead. But they don't, so do we (1) keep waiting for the problem to solve itself, (2) decide not to solve the problem, or (3) take action to solve the problem? Because thus far, the only suggested alternative to a minimum wage increase is to do nothing at all.
We can quibble over the exact value, but every number is arbitrary, including the current one. If $15 an hour is better, why not $25? If $7.15 an hour is better, why not $3?
Personally, I'd make it a floating number: the value needed to support one adult and one dependent with basic needs on a 35- or 40-hour work week on a ~50-week work year, adjusted for purchasing power parity, and adjusted for inflation. Have a committee define "basic needs" for housing, healthcare, necessities, and utilities, and you can calculate the result.
That would be far more accurate to American needs than a flat number that has not been adjusted in 10 years.
Comments
I'm skeptical that white folks currently have much to fear in terms of oppression, since we're still the majority, we'll also be the plurality for decades into the future, nonwhite folks have been pretty tolerant of us thus far (most anti-white sentiment, from what I can tell, comes from white liberals rather than people of color), and the Constitution pretty much bans any form of anti-white legislation or policymaking. Congress could attempt to pass that kind of law, but the Supreme Court is going to be disproportionately white long into the future for historical reasons, so I doubt those kinds of laws would survive Supreme Court review.
That said, I'm recognizing a new point I haven't heard anyone make just yet. If anti-immigrant sentiment from Trump "laid the groundwork" for hate crimes and legitimized the family separation policy--that is, if words pave the way for action--then wouldn't anti-white rhetoric also "lay the groundwork" for anti-white policies?
In the past, I've dismissed the fears of anti-white persecution primarily because, to paraphrase my own words, "It's not actual discrimination; it's just annoying rhetoric." I think a lot of liberals would say there's a pretty big gap between saying something negative about white folks and actively persecuting them.
But wouldn't it be possible for us to eventually bridge that gap?
After all, I was one of a number of people who thought Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric never would have resulted in something as hideous as the family separation policy. And yet, the administration did bridge that gap, and plenty of folks have even defended the policy long afterwards.
It's definitely debatable whether anti-white sentiment could be a real problem anytime soon. But isn't it possible it could be a real problem in the long term, 20 or 30 years from now?
I'm not quite sure if that's realistic. It still seems a little far-fetched because it's so at odds with our current society, which is pretty white-friendly in almost every dimension (even with affirmative action, whites are more likely to get into college than most peoples of color). And, importantly, not every word translates into real action. But if anti-immigrant rhetoric does lay the ground for anti-immigrant discrimination, the same would apply for anti-anything rhetoric.
What do you guys think? We might not deem anti-immigrant and anti-white rhetoric as equal in every respect, but does that same principle still apply to both?
This is so far out from what I've experienced in life, that I'm almost compelled to ask about the color of the sky on your planet. I'm a member of a multiracial family, and I've seen how much harder my black family members have had to work to get where they are. If you are so far gone that you actually think that white people have to work harder to reach the same place in life as black people ...
I've been sitting here for several minutes and I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Frankly my reaction to your posts was the same jaw-drop I got when I first watched a flat-earther's youtube video and realized he was 100% serious.
The truth is that Sarah has in fact harmed someone with her journalism (and not her tweets), but that someone is neither American nor white.
Trash-talking any group of people (regardless of the reason) makes the one doing the talking appear trashy.
Trash-talking any group of people because of their skin color and/or ethnicity makes the one doing the talking a racist, according to the definition of the word...even if the person doing the talking is black and they are talking about white people.
Ultimately, human beings simply do not like other human beings very much. Fortunately, we are not required to like each other but we do have to live with each other.
That's great and all but what about the Nazis and pedophiles groups? We can't 'trash talk' them because we don't want to offend them? Yeah I just don't know about that. People that hold deplorable views should be prepared to accept that most reasonable people don't accept their views.
In regards to this, I don't have a multi-racial family per se, bit I do have a multi-racial cousin whose father was black. Now, I grew up in the same town she did (because my aunt eventually married someone she met while visiting us). About halfway through high school, she switched schools because of how she was being treated and traveled 40 miles round trip to a larger town instead. Now, when my aunt initially told me she was being singled out because of her race, I (who was maybe 19 at the time) dismissed this. After all, I knew and liked these teachers, and I didn't believe they would do that.
But I wasn't my cousin, and I have no idea what subtle looks and comments she was getting. How would I?? I was a tall, white kid who grew up in a town with nearly all white people. My cousin was practically the LONE exception to that rule. In retrospect, I'm ashamed for even for a very short time for dismissing the reasons they pulled her from my school. Maybe the teachers themselves didn't know what they were doing. But they were doing it all the same.
Of course, by their own logic, this is pretty air tight. And this is exactly what i'm saying.
Every prediction is that the white majority of this country is only going to last another couple of decades. It's more or less inevitable.
Anti white rhetoric not only has a place, it's been growing over the past couple of years. I would be less surprised if this rhetoric wasn't put into place policy wise, in some form, once they have total power.
Oh, and those were Sarah Jeongs words. She didn't use that phrase specifically (genetically inferior), but you can look at it for yourself and tell me if i'm taking it out of context. Look up the rest of them, there's a lot, for good measure. It's just non stop. I'm sure someone will try to say "just a joke bro", but once you make the same joke a hundred times, one stops laughing and starts assuming you mean it. Not that this would be an excuse anyway.
"Ms Jeong wrote in one tweet from July 2014: "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
One online critic posted a selection of Ms Jeong's other tweets, which contain obscenities.
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she said in December 2014."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
This is, of course, just a good case study in the ongoing pattern, and certainly neither the first nor the last example of it.
We can also explore academia, or continue using the press, as both are hotbeds of this nonsense.
Take, for example, "the problems of whiteness", a real thing real universities teach:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/12/a-course-originally-called-the-problem-of-whiteness-returns-to-asu-as-racial-tensions-boil-over-on-campuses/
The whole premise is that white people (just them, only them) are unconsciously racist, blah blah blah, feel guilty, end "whiteness". This isn't education but indoctrination into self hate. A justification for their own coming second class status. Insert *change my mind* meme.
And what do the students themselves think is the problem of whiteness? Why, white people, of course! But since you can't say "why white people suck" out loud, you have to phrase it as "The problems of whiteness"
https://badgerherald.com/opinion/2018/05/04/the-problem-of-whiteness-is-still-inevitably-white-people/
black performers apparently don't like crowds that are too white. this is presented as stunning and brave. need i go on?
"but the “overwhelming whiteness” of Edinburgh festival fringe can be off-putting to potential performers and punters, according to Jessica Brough, the founder of Fringe of Colour."
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/jul/29/grassroots-project-addresses-edinburgh-fringes-overwhelming-whiteness?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1564377468
You lost me at flat earther. It's a clear sign you aren't taking me seriously and so I have no reason to take you seriously. But, since your only point here is that you are surprised and think i'm crazy, without any sort of reasoning, there's not a lot to dismiss in the first place. We can agree to be on different planets. People who enjoy being cruel to whites just don't exist, in fact, and certainly don't get institutional support. After all, you have never personally experienced it, and thus it can not be a problem now or at any point in time or place in the country.
One does not need to disparage the groups you mention--they do that to themselves via their actions. The problem with "depolrable views" is that it is too subjective. Most reasonable people do not accept the view that the minimum wage should be $15 per hour--should the people who do believe that need to accept the fact that their view is deplorable?
For the record, most Americans support the minimum wage being raised to $15 per hour. Obviously it's your prerogative to dismiss many or all of them as unreasonable.
He wasn't saying "your ancestors were bad". He was saying black people actually suffered. And to compare getting criticism -- mostly online, where you can choose to seek it out -- is to not understand what actually happened in history.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27459178
Minimum wage increase only increases the unemployment.
Fast forward to this weekend. It happens. We get an iron-clad reasoning behind a targeted murder spree, which just so happens to be the EXACT scenario that was treated as such a hilarious aside (that should never been taken seriously, because that's the get out of jail free card for everything, unless apparently it's a leftie columnist on Twitter, who magically we are supposed to take seriously, so the rules are unclear) at Trump's rally in what was, I think, Florida.
And where are we 48 hours later?? On one hand, it's "shame on you for spending so much time pointing out where this was heading, if only people like you hadn't done so, this could have been prevented". On on the other we have a targeted massacre of quote unquote "Mexicans" turning into a debate about the hypothetical tyranny that is about to take place when more people of color attain positions of power, which just so happens to be one of the exact fears the shooter had. Just so we're clear what group of people should be at the center of concern and debate in any given conversation. In a sense, the shooter's act has been REWARDED, from the President holding gun reform hostage to immigration demands to a national debate about whether white nationalism is a legitimate political refuge in a country with a legacy of slavery. Fantastic.
Lost down the memory-hole (both the fact that it happened at all and the recent conclusion)?? The guy who attempted to assassinate practically every prominent national Democrat, who later admitted to having been radicalized at Trump rallies, got a mere 20 years in prison. When two of his targets were former Presidents and one was 3rd in the line of succession. Richard Reid's shoe bomb didn't go off either, but somehow I don't think he's getting out after 20 years. But the MAGA bomber?? Yeah, of course HE can get out one day.
We already have a minimum wage. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in a long, long, long time (Which of course is 100% Trump, right?). So we know it doesnt just arbitrarily destroy the economy. We can negotiate the value, but the federally managed minimum wage as decided in 1991 probably isnt the perfect number, considering how the economy has changed.
A majority of respondents to a poll does not equal a majority of Americans.
If I were a corporation I would definitely push for a $15 per hour minimum wage. That way, I can cut some people and automate their jobs where possible, then trim hours to make up the difference--oh, you were working 40 hours this week but now you are working only 35. If I am an unscrupulous contractor it gets even better--why should I pay you $15 when I can hire some guy who waltzed across the border two days ago and he'll work for $10? Since less than 4% of all hourly jobs actually pay the minimum raising the minimum would not positively impact that many people. Right now, Wal-Mart and Target in this area already pay $13, so anyone working for the absolute minimum needs to rethink their strategy.
Most people who support $15 are unreasonable, though. What logical reason is there for paying a completely unskilled laborer $15 per hour? The minimum wage is not designed to support a family of 4; it is for high school students, semi-retired elderly people, or working adults who need a second part- or full-time job to pad their budget. Why not make the minimum $20, or $25?
The *first* thing that will happen if the minimum wage rises precipitously is that prices across the board will rise. We have covered all that before and the "fight for 15" folks didn't understand it then, either.
No country should have minimum wage. Switzerland and few other European countries are right on it. I suggest the article The Racist History of Minimum Wage Laws
https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws
Believing that minimum wage should be too low for someone to live on is pretty deplorable, though. This is not even subjective, as the currently extremely low minimum wage even has a body count, and the claims that raising minimum wage would be economically hazardous aren't remotely true.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Friends-Woman-Who-Died-Working-3-Jobs-Had-Untold-Story-Maria-Fernandes-280414572.html
The Mises Institute is pretty biased toward US libertarianism and the far right. Of course they oppose the notion that people deserve to be paid enough to live on.
The unemployment rate has almost nothing to do with the occupant of the Oval Office, whether the rate is good or bad.
I don't disagree that the current Federal number is outdated and should probably be raised some, but as I note only 4% of all hourly jobs actually pay the minimum...except for food service people--they don't even get the minimum, which sucks and is why we always try to tip generously in cash so it goes directly into their pocket. Anyway, unless I want to empty trash cans and clean bathrooms as a part-time job--which I have done before--I would have to try and find a job which actually pays the minimum. I mentioned Wal-Mart, who pays $13 in this area, and they have a horrible track record of abusing employees.
I didn't say that raising the minimum wage would destroy the economy; even the Chinese manipulating the yuan didn't do that. All I said was that it would lead to higher prices because that would be a lot of inflationary pressure--if people are making more money then vendors can charge more, and they have to charge more because they are having to pay their employees more.
$15 is on its way out the door, though. The new minimum will be $20--there have already been calls for that. Who was that? Talib? I don't recall. But we have to ask the question: if unskilled labor is worth $20 then why not $25? Who gets to set that arbitrary number?
No rational person should *want* to make only the lowest amount possible. If you are sick and tired of making a pittance then go get some job training or start taking classes at a community college. Sign up for only one computer course, which usually culminates in receiving the A+ certification--now you can get a call-center-type job making $15. The opportunities to improve one's position are out there, if only people look for them and take advantage of them.
Wrong, did you read the article in question? Minimum wage isn't about "minimum to survive", is to cut those of low productivity from the job market.
Sorry, I'm not going to even entertain the deplorable notion that getting paid a living wage is an individual problem individuals must solve for themselves in a society where wages have been flat for everyone but the wealthiest over the past few decades.
Also I see you completely ignored the fact that the current system has a body count.
If you cherry pick history then sure.
The emphasis on productivity as something to exploit from people while paying them as little as possible is a capitalist problem, and thus not a problem that the Mises Institute would ever want to actually solve. They're trying to fuel the notion that a livable minimum wage now is bad.
You are not correct. They rejected increasing it but they have a minimum wage equivalent in fact it's one of the highest in the world.
Switzerland has a government-mandated minimum wage, and no worker in Switzerland can be paid less then this mandatory minimum rate of pay. Employers in Switzerland who fail to pay the Minimum Wage may be subject to punishment by Switzerland's government.
How does Switzerland's minimum wage compare to the minimum wage in other countries?
Switzerland's yearly minimum wage is $15,457.00 in International Currency. International Currency is a measure of currency based on the value of the United States dollar in 2009.
There are ONLY 8 countries with a higher Minimum Wage then Switzerland, and Switzerland is in the top 4 percent of all countries based on the yearly minimum wage rate.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/international/switzerland
Here is an explanation " that have no legal minimum wage still have minimum wages set by industry through collective bargaining contracts. The majority of their working populations are unionized." https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp
And is not bad? Any time of intervention is bad. Lets suppose that i wanna work in exchange for only stocks of the company, why the state should prohibit it? "but the company can fail", so are you saying that the state should protect me from myself? This is threat state like god.
What the state needs to do in order to people lose faith on the state? Killing thousands of times more than the Black Death in peace time isn't enough? The aristocratic old state was far less evil than the modern "rational" state.
Thank you for correcting the record on this. Again, I encourage folks to please DOUBLE CHECK your facts before posting here. You shouldn't be able to be corrected by a quick google search.
And when your facts are in error -- none of us are perfect -- acknowledge this. Discussion here and frankly everywhere will improve vastly if people follow this simple courtesy.
Letting capitalist business run unfettered without intervention and regulation is bad. That way lies factory workers losing their jaws to white phosphorous or radiation, workers trapped inside the Triangle Shirtwaist factory while it burned down around them, and child labor.
If you think what governments have done is evil (but your barometer for this is profoundly useless as you think Bolsonaro is good for some reason), then wait until you see what the fossil fuel industry premeditatedly did to the climate.
But the reality is that big business such as you defend is extremely dependent on government intervention to function even as it does now. In the US, most national politicians are beholden to at least some big business or other, to insure that their interests are taken care of.
Also, in your first paragraph? You assembled a straw man right there in front of everyone, and then asked me to defend it - could you not do that?
If your pollution is damaging other person propriety, you should pay for that. Same with your own workers. About child labor, people talk about child labor as it is an "capitalist thing", when children worked hard during communist regimes, and worked hard since the tribal societies. In fact capitalism allowed an higher productivity that allowed children to stop working.
The most pollution happens in Asia and Africa. Regions with traditional big government. The biggest disaster to the nature happened during communism, in Chernobyl. An the government tried to hide it. The best thing that the government can do is to cut taxes and regulations on electric cars and let the market develop an green energy
I don't defend big business. In fact, many of then are responsible for the state growth and small companies do an much better job at attending the costumers demand. But if the state " insure that their interests are taken care of", increase the state power is increase the big business power.
Talking about minimum wage, an big company automate, can move to an cheaper country. The small business will be heavily impacted by it.
In case I wasn't clear, the thing I'm calling crazy is your assertion that white people have a harder time reaching their goals in life than black people do. And yes I think to believe that, you'd have to ignore just as much evidence as flat-earthers do.
And I've "never personally experienced" what exactly? Someone saying mean things on twitter about a group I identify with? We're both white, so if she's saying those things about you, she's saying them about me too. Why again should I care? I didn't care about those who called me a race-traitor, or said I was stealing their women, or even the five-percenter who said I had a "black soul".
Have you ever actually experienced discrimination? Had a racial slur painted on your shop? Been denied a loan because the house is in a [white] neighborhood? Had your clothes stolen because "[white people] shouldn't have nice things like that"? (and on and on and on) Anything at all beyond mean words on the Internet?
If we want to reject that purpose and say there is a new reason to have a minimum wage besides allowing people to live a normal life, that's another story. But that's the original purpose of the minimum wage. It wasn't just there to lift up teenagers and fast food workers; it was to establish a living wage for people at the lowest-paying jobs of the time.
It would be great if the various minimum wage workers of the United States just got higher-paying jobs. The thing is, that's not actually happening in real life, and while we may complain about that not happening, we have to wrestle with the reality we have; not the reality we'd like.
It would be great if people didn't let their homes catch on fire. But they do, so the government provides funding for fire departments. We deem that a problem, so we provide a solution. It would be great if people who made $8 an hour made $10 instead. But they don't, so do we (1) keep waiting for the problem to solve itself, (2) decide not to solve the problem, or (3) take action to solve the problem? Because thus far, the only suggested alternative to a minimum wage increase is to do nothing at all.
We can quibble over the exact value, but every number is arbitrary, including the current one. If $15 an hour is better, why not $25? If $7.15 an hour is better, why not $3?
Personally, I'd make it a floating number: the value needed to support one adult and one dependent with basic needs on a 35- or 40-hour work week on a ~50-week work year, adjusted for purchasing power parity, and adjusted for inflation. Have a committee define "basic needs" for housing, healthcare, necessities, and utilities, and you can calculate the result.
That would be far more accurate to American needs than a flat number that has not been adjusted in 10 years.