1. Because that would lead to massive inflation.
2. This was your initial argument and I countered it w/ basic economic theory.
3. We’re not increasing it to 1m/hr, we’d be increasing it to 15/hr (in 2029) for a small subset of the population (which has been $7.25 for about 20 years now)
4. This won’t produce massive economic disruption.
5. It reduces the poverty rate.
@clownarguments@nightlight7001@PollTracker2024 1. The bottom wage earners relatively increasing their position vis a vis the top earners reduces the poverty rate.
2. You seem to believe raising the floor sets a new standard, not if there is an opposing force (reducing money supply). This is Econ 101.
@clownarguments@nightlight7001@PollTracker2024 If you’re worried about inflation w/ common sense wage increases, easy solution: jusr tax the top 10% & reduce the money supply
(Also, yes, raising the lowest wages does change the poverty rate dum dum)
@umichvoter Voters in WI are going to vote for whoever has a D next to their name during a blue wave year. I wouldn’t worry about ‘electability’. Whoever wins the primary should alleviate any and all doubt
@OKLETSDOTHIS007@DudeWhoInvests Historical SP returns are 10% (not 7%) and this could be adjusted downward depending on market conditions. 4% might be better for some people; there’s a trade off for everything (like delaying retirement)
@IAPolls2022 this makes me think that the harris/newsom support in general election polls comes from southern democrats that don't matter in general. IDK why we don't do primary in swing states first.