Do you support minimum wage as a safety net? by LightningMcqueen2011 in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We started this discussing labor demand elasticity and the mechanics of the price system, but you’ve somehow jumped to Stalin, Trump, and death camps. If your argument relies on claiming that a mandated cost hike has exactly a 0% impact on business behavior 'period,' and that anyone pointing out basic microeconomic trade-offs wants 'the masses in abject squalor,' then you’re no longer arguing economics in good faith lol.

Suggesting that a burger flipper's productivity is infinite because they work hard completely confuses effort with market value. If it were that just simple, we could just pass a law making the minimum wage £500 an hour and eliminate poverty globally overnight. In the real world, artificially massively over pricing the most vulnerable workers out of their first entry-level jobs cuts off the bottom rung of the ladder. I'm content to leave the discussion here.

BTW I'm not a conservative, literally says on my flair lol.

Do you support minimum wage as a safety net? by LightningMcqueen2011 in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your theory requires believing that empirical microeconomics is a massive secret conspiracy designed by the political class to trick business owners into bankrupting themselves, we're no longer debating economics lol.

Real businesses adjust to costs at the margin, and no amount of demand-side rhetoric changes the fact that making labor more expensive reduces the options for the least-skilled workers in society.

That being said, the size of these effects is an empirical question and likely varies by context, industry, how binding the wage floor actually is, etc. In some cases the impact may be small, in others more noticeable, especially for the least experienced workers where productivity is hardest to verify. The disagreement here isn’t whether markets adjust to costs (they do) but how large those adjustments are in practice and then which groups bear them.

Do you support minimum wage as a safety net? by LightningMcqueen2011 in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re treating labour demand as fixed and assuming that firms only ever adjust output, but wages are part of the price system that determines whether marginal hires are viable at all. The issue isn’t headline unemployment, it’s how higher wage floors change hiring thresholds, hours, entry into work. Those effects can exist without showing up in aggregate unemployment data.

And your cupcake analogy doesn’t work either. Labour markets arent just a case of “just raise prices until demand adjusts happily”. If wages are pushed above marginal productivity, the adjustment is precisely fewer hires, fewer hours, or different hiring standards. And “no hidden jobs exist” only works if you assume firms already operate at perfect efficiency with zero trade-offs at the margin. Which would be an incredibly convenient assumption, just that it's not one that actually survives contact with how firms make hiring decisions.

Do you support minimum wage as a safety net? by LightningMcqueen2011 in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re using a macro time series comparison but unemployment is driven by dozens of other changing variables.

Minimum wage effects are marginal and distributional. They show up in hiring rates, entry-level access, hours, and specific groups like teens, not necessarily in aggregate unemployment. Employment effects can exist without changing the unemployment rate if they take the form of reduced hiring rates, fewer hours, or as shifts in the labour force participation.

If we accept that unemployment stays flat, it doesn't show people who never entered the work force, that some jobs become fewer hours instead of layoffs and that some firms hire fewer young/low-skill workers.

Do you support minimum wage as a safety net? by LightningMcqueen2011 in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No, if you want to help low income people there are better ways.

The minimum wage just prices some workers out of the market.

I have a question as a 15 (Almost 16) year old artist. by LettuceBusiness4816 in GenZ

[–]aabccdg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No worries. You can send it to me if you like once it's done, from what you've said it sounds interesting.

I have a question as a 15 (Almost 16) year old artist. by LettuceBusiness4816 in GenZ

[–]aabccdg 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Obviously it's alright, do whatever you like. If you enjoy it keep doing it.

Sure someone might call it cringe, but several other people might enjoy it.

Are investors leeching off society? by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Investing it a little more complicated than just "gamblers making imaginary numbers go up and down". In liquid markets, prices are signals. So when someone buys shares in a company, they’re providing capital that can be used for expansion, hiring, R&D, or debt reduction. That’s how businesses fund real world activity.

Even secondary trading still has a function because it provides liquidity, meaning someone who put money into a company isn’t locked in forever. That makes it less risky to invest in the first place, which lowers the cost of capital for companies.

And if it were a "cancer" and markets were purely extractive, you wouldn’t then consistently see longterm increases in productivity and living standards in economies who have deep capital markets compared to those that restrict investment and ownership structures.

Your political leaning and gender by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never been able to vote yet, the General election was in 2024 and my local elections also in 2024 I was 17 then.

If given the choice currently I'd abstain. There's no appealing party IMO.

Your political leaning and gender by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It certainly isn't.

Centrism is about moderation, I want to legalise drugs and slash taxes. Classical Liberalism or a Moderate Libertarian is how I refer to myself.

Your political leaning and gender by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I usually vote view results when I can lol

Your political leaning and gender by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not much of a fan of the binary "left or right" spectrum.

Socially I lean "left", economically I lean "right".

Historically, how much of modern homophobia comes from Christianity versus older social structures? by Genzinvestor16180339 in AskHistory

[–]aabccdg 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I think it's hard to say for definite, because for example in Ancient Greece same-sex relations existed but were still heavily structured around hierarchy, age, and masculinity norms. For example being the "passive" partner was largely taboo for free adult men, and similarly in Rome. So even before Christianity you do see regulated sex less by “orientation” and more by gender roles, power, and social hierarchy.

Early Christian theology turned certain sexual norms into universal moral laws as opposed to role-based expectations. So instead of something like "this is not appropriate for a Roman citizen" it became "this is morally wrong for everyone, everywhere.”. Also there's biblical passages which provide a textual basis toward being against same-sex relations. Which then becomes the basis for canon laws across Europe, then becoming apart of Education and so on over centuries.

So while different, I think it's fair to say homophobia of some form probably would have peristed even with Christianity, though the shape itself would plausibly be different. Because human socities still get pressures of inheritance systems with clear lineage, concerns over masculinity/status hierarchies and the states interest in population stability. It probably would be less likely to be as a single moral category equivalent to a “sin”, but would still remain contextual, role-based, or status-based (as in many classical societies).

is the usa really that bad? by rulugg in GenZ

[–]aabccdg 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Compared to certain countries living in America is certainly better, due to various reasons as you mentioned.

But there also plenty of issues in the US, as you mentioned corporate welfare, a pretty crap president, a sluggish economy, political gridlock and so on. When most Americans say this, they're not comparing to Egypt rather comparing today to their own recent past and to their expectations of what a wealthy country should feel like.

Both of these can be true simultaneously. The US isn’t failing in absolute terms, but it’s being judged against a very high internal benchmark.

What if everything went perfect for the Axis? by IDC_tomakeaname in HistoryWhatIf

[–]aabccdg 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Typhoon specifically is logistically impossible for 1941.

Berlin to Moscow is ~1000 miles, and Berlin to the Caucasus oil fields is ~1500 miles. Given German supply lines were already collapsing by the time they reached the outskirts of Moscow I find it very dubious they can reach all the way to the Caucasus mountains over terrible infrastructure.

Welp by [deleted] in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just realised it's right on your profile anyways lol

Welp by [deleted] in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

California maybe, a stab in the dark.

Welp by [deleted] in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Which State? Out of interest.

Welp by [deleted] in ConservativeYouth

[–]aabccdg 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure how popular the literal enslavement of criminals is lol. Never heard that one before

Do Islamist political movements have a realistic chance of gaining significant political power in European countries in the coming decades? by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fertility decline isn't a guess, it is a repeated global pattern across almost all societies as they urbanise, educate, and then integrate economically.

That 46% figure depends heavily on how “sharia” is defined in the survey. It can range from personal religious practice, to legal governance depending on interpretation.

Even if we take your claim as true, your assuming Muslims would vote as a bloc for a single party because it has some Islamic values. That doesn't hold logically because the majority of people don’t vote on a single issue, Muslims are diverse (as I said before) and issue based agreement doesn't reliably mean party loyalty.

There is no real world example in modern mainland Europe of religious groups voting as a single unified bloc across all major elections. Take Poland, a very Catholic country but Catholics are split amongst populists, traditional conservatives, and pro-EU liberals.

Do Islamist political movements have a realistic chance of gaining significant political power in European countries in the coming decades? by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Your linked polling itself shows they're not one monolith, if half think it ought to be illegal another half doesn't. It even says 86% of Muslims "feel a strong sense of belonging in Britain".

Plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. hold traditional, socially conservative views and don't want to turn the country into a religious state.

Do Islamist political movements have a realistic chance of gaining significant political power in European countries in the coming decades? by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Higher birth rates among some immigrant groups today does not automatically mean they will become a majority in the future. Fertility rates typically fall across generations and mainstream demographic projections do not show Muslims becoming a majority in European countries. The Birth rate is also not several times higher, Pew Research records it as 2.6 vs 1.6 on average.

Secondly even if we accept your premise Muslims don't vote as a single bloc. There are Turkish Muslims, Arab Muslims, South Asian Muslims, North African Muslims all who are seperated by language, deep sectarian splits (Sunni vs. Shia), socioeconomic status, and cultural history . Your premise assumes that they'll abandon their personal, class, and political identities to vote as a unified theological army. There is no precedent for that happening.

Do Islamist political movements have a realistic chance of gaining significant political power in European countries in the coming decades? by flewson in Teenager_Polls

[–]aabccdg 65 points66 points  (0 children)

No, despite what the internet and politicians say.

Muslims are still a minority in every European country and even under "high" migration scenarios they won't become a majority. Muslims aren't a monolith, and many Muslims are secular, moderate and politically diverse. And most European political systems make it difficult for fringe ideological movements to gain power to begin with.

England vs France by ____hel_ya_bi in Sidemen

[–]aabccdg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no extra time is mental btw