Alexander_Ray

Does the "fight for 15" (as in $15 an hour) include raising the wages paid to migrant workers?

One of the main arguments re: bringing in immigrant laborers seems to be that they are the ones who will be willing to "pick the fruit and mow the lawns."

I think there may be a logical problem here. If the minimum wage is increased to $15 across the board, regular Americans (or whatever country you may be in) would presumably be willing to pick the fruit and mow the lawns. At which point, isn't the argument that we need migrants to do these jobs defused because now the natives are willing to do them?

On the other hand, let's assume that the fight for $15 an hour does not include migrant worke

Does the "fight for 15" (as in $15 an hour) include raising the wages paid to migrant workers?

One of the main arguments re: bringing in immigrant laborers seems to be that they are the ones who will be willing to "pick the fruit and mow the lawns."

I think there may be a logical problem here. If the minimum wage is increased to $15 across the board, regular Americans (or whatever country you may be in) would presumably be willing to pick the fruit and mow the lawns. At which point, isn't the argument that we need migrants to do these jobs defused because now the natives are willing to do them?

On the other hand, let's assume that the fight for $15 an hour does not include migrant worke

The center-left wants to make use of, perhaps even rehabilitate the far-left into their political tent. During the recent yellow vest protests, we’re seeing far-left people ally with moderate to far-right elements against a climate change tax. We can presume that they are doing this because they feel the climate change tax doesn’t go far enough, so naturally they will join some riots. How is leftist progress to be made if anything short of a huge leap leftwards makes far-leftists join their supposed enemies in rioting? The answer should be that said progress can’t be made: these far-leftists are not going to cooperate with anyone.

The smartest leftists know that the above is true and this m

The center-left wants to make use of, perhaps even rehabilitate the far-left into their political tent. During the recent yellow vest protests, we’re seeing far-left people ally with moderate to far-right elements against a climate change tax. We can presume that they are doing this because they feel the climate change tax doesn’t go far enough, so naturally they will join some riots. How is leftist progress to be made if anything short of a huge leap leftwards makes far-leftists join their supposed enemies in rioting? The answer should be that said progress can’t be made: these far-leftists are not going to cooperate with anyone.

The smartest leftists know that the above is true and this m

He just did what people said they want (a modest attempt to combat perceived climate change) and in response, the far-left allies with rioting "moderates" (probably mostly migrants) and the far-right (probably fewer rioters than the far-left IMHO) and now he's going to have to resign or something. This will surely be the largest red pill of his life.

For me at least, and I suspect many others, this confirms my suspicion that people who want things like cap-and-trade were misjudging the political viability of suppressing fuel use.

First, some context for my argument: a long time ago, the concept of honor was very important in western civilization. Unless you are in the military or maybe the police, the definition of honor is probably alien to you. I believe that most western people today couldn't explain what it is if you asked them.

Even my own definition has to be long and drawn out: before long distance communication and rapid transit, people tended to know each other quite well. Someone's "honor" described their reputation, usually in terms of their willingness to keep their word, to support the greater good of the community or the rules ahead of their personal interests. These things would be summed up in a

First, some context for my argument: a long time ago, the concept of honor was very important in western civilization. Unless you are in the military or maybe the police, the definition of honor is probably alien to you. I believe that most western people today couldn't explain what it is if you asked them.

Even my own definition has to be long and drawn out: before long distance communication and rapid transit, people tended to know each other quite well. Someone's "honor" described their reputation, usually in terms of their willingness to keep their word, to support the greater good of the community or the rules ahead of their personal interests. These things would be summed up in a

First, some context for my argument: a long time ago, the concept of honor was very important in western civilization. Unless you are in the military or maybe the police, the definition of honor is probably alien to you. I believe that most western people today couldn't explain what it is if you asked them.

Even my own definition has to be long and drawn out: before long distance communication and rapid transit, people tended to know each other quite well. Someone's "honor" described their reputation, usually in terms of their willingness to keep their word, to support the greater good of the community or the rules ahead of their personal interests. These things would be summed up in a

First, some context for my argument: a long time ago, the concept of honor was very important in western civilization. Unless you are in the military or maybe the police, the definition of honor is probably alien to you. I believe that most western people today couldn't explain what it is if you asked them.

Even my own definition has to be long and drawn out: before long distance communication and rapid transit, people tended to know each other quite well. Someone's "honor" described their reputation, usually in terms of their willingness to keep their word, to support the greater good of the community or the rules ahead of their personal interests. These things would be summed up in a

This is related to why we are supposed to respect the elderly, or one of the reasons why we should not be hostile towards rich people. Without rich old men who have learned to be conservative during their lives, there is little wisdom. Without wisdom there's no experience, no patience, no tactics etc.

Civilization is basically the aggregate of rich, conservative old men's legacies and it should be no wonder that when a civilization turns against its rich, conservative old men it usually stops being a civilization pretty quickly.

Related, technology matters but it's also completely neutral and inhuman by nature, so technology alone is not civilization.

I was having a discussion with another user where I estimated that 2026 will be a turning point in American politics. My reasoning went like this: Democrats win in 2024, try to pass retarded things like carbon taxes and open borders, get shut down by a conservative SCOTUS, fail to perform well on the economy, finally they lose bigly in the 2026 midterms. At this point, I suspect that many of the AntiFA-like types might conclude that winning elections is not enough for them to advance their agenda. If I'm correct about all this it might mark a turning point in American politics.

A presumption for the above theory, perhaps a necessary one or perhaps it could take things even further than I

I was having a discussion with another user where I estimated that 2026 will be a turning point in American politics. My reasoning went like this: Democrats win in 2024, try to pass retarded things like carbon taxes and open borders, get shut down by a conservative SCOTUS, fail to perform well on the economy, finally they lose bigly in the 2026 midterms. At this point, I suspect that many of the AntiFA-like types might conclude that winning elections is not enough for them to advance their agenda. If I'm correct about all this it might mark a turning point in American politics.

A presumption for the above theory, perhaps a necessary one or perhaps it could take things even further than I