I give up on humans

Grandest Kek

All those edgy libretardian teenagers don't realize the only reason they have a comfy life is because foodstamps, wic, section 8 housing are the only things preventing the poor from chimping out and destroying society inside out.

There's entertainment too

Identity politics.

>embrace our differences
Trying to get people to embrace their differences prevents society from progressing, good people may embrace differences but the bad won't and they will continue to impose their bad ideas on everyone, ideas will never be allowed to clash, people will never question these things out of fear of offending someone, people will resent other groups they have to share a democratic government with instead of sitting down and talking about problems, it prevents beneficial change.

>give us money or we chimp out
this is something to be minimized

Welcome to the hard reality of the situation, welfare capitalism doesn't exactly exist out of the goodness of politician's hearts.

Why do that when competition allows you to progress as society?
In all things without conflict, either real or manufactured, their is no point in doing so.

The artist is at conflict with his own ability to recreate his vision.
The soldier is at conflict with the man in front of him.
The state is at conflict with its derelict and instigstories.
One society is at conflict with another for cultural dominion.

Embrace that humans are shit, because of such shit we shall become greater. As if we were golems of shit, growing ever more powerful as shit is piled on us.

I would prefer not to.

That is all.

Is there any meme worse than "lost faith in humanity"?

>technological, scientific, and medicinal breakthroughs
>ongoing globalization allowing multiculturalism and a wider connection between times
>relatively peaceful time in history
>we literally improve no matter what we do in nearly all aspects
>hurrrdurrr i saw one bad thing today why has god abandonded us

You are such an idiot. Of course it doesn't, it even hurts the poor more. They would be better off without welfare and no revolution would be needed.

>They would be better off without welfare and no revolution would be needed.
kek

It's true. Wages were on the rise before minimum wage laws were implemented, and so was the reduction of poverty before welfare.
I take it you are a commie anyways

Yeah...wages were riding so fast thousands of people went on strike and fought for a minimum wage.

You're just another teenage libretardian wholly ignorant of basic history.

original poster

Wages increased before minimum wage laws, that's a fact, meaning wages still rise without such laws and arguably at a faster rate. They demanded minimum wage laws, but that doesn't mean it was good for them.
You are the one who doesn't understand history.

Minimum wage laws were initially put in place specifically because factories consistently hired women and children so they could pay them less and have an unfair advantage in bargaining.

You're a fucking moron and your entire worldview is bullshit. Hayek was proven wrong in the 30s by a little thing called THE GREAT FUCKING DEPRESSION.

Kill yourself you fucking idiot.

I don't care about Hayek. Economy under crises are one thing, economy when not under a crisis is another.
Also, it's not always efficient to hire woman and children. Before because of heavy labour unsuited for them, and now because of the specialization of labour.
Minimum wage laws still hurt the poor.

New friend?

>rational
>self
>interest

>running on the fumes of the basic human tenets maintained by millennia of monarchy

based bartleby

Because it isn't in the nature of humanity to show compassion for those outside of our groupings. It is the struggle between groups that drives humanity forward. Too much compassion causes humanity to stagnate.

Less then 1 percent of humanity is responsible for this. And most of them were constantly being shit on by the majority while achieving this. Hell, even now, people who are trying to make the world better are being shit on. Just look at how scientists and doctors have to deal with anti-vaxxers and similar retards. And try to speak out for human decency outside the West, try to convince people in the Middle East that killing apostates is wrong, or people in Russia that gays are not evil.

The thing is, the West had a lucky streak with human rights and decency, somehow after ww2, movements for civil liberties, civil rights, equality and tolerance succeeded. I suspect it was mainly due to people in important positions being open to this messages, especially those in the media. Gay rights for example literally became accepted only because a bunch of media creators and owners came together and agreed to put gay characters and pro-LGBT messages into popular shows. It didn't come from the masses but from the elites.

But I think it's very probable that after this lucky streak is over, we will just slide back to barbarism. Just look at what happened to the civil rights ideas after they became accepted in the West by the majority. They became bastardized by SJW-ism and black nationalists like BLM, which in turn created the alt-right. Politics in the USA is starting to come down to SJWs vs. alt-right, and things are not getting better at the rest of the world either. It "helps" a lot that most of us live in democracies, and given that the majority of humanity is scum, it's just a matter of time until we are back to burning or stoning each other.

valuable friend, and swell guy. Handsome even.

Minimal wage is bad for workers and good for big business. With minimum wage workers who are worth getting paid minwage aren't going to be paid at all because they won't be worth it to hire.

Let's say I have no useful skills but a shitton of time because I'm a lonely NEET, if I wanted to work for some guy at $6 an hour for 14 hours a day (because I'm bored and I like money) because that's what my labor is worth, I can't do that, it would be illegal for me to sell my labor at that price; of course plenty of people don't care and they still do shit like that in the grey economy. It is also good for big business because they can afford to pay their workers more than they're worth and still stay in business, while a smaller business would not be able to afford paying their workers more and so would have to let some go. Do you think the workers wanted this? If they did wanted to be paid more they could've negotiated on their own terms, but instead the government takes away their choice and puts an artificial barrier to entry to the work force for people whose labor is already worth the minwage while barring everyone else whose labor isn't.

>why shouldnt I be allowed to undercut the established wage when I desire until everyone else does it as well out of desperation and the prevailing wage is now ten cents a day: the post
>"think about how much better the american worker would have it if they were allowed to work under Bangladesh tier sweatshop conditions! the economy would skyrocket!"
kys

>technological, scientific, and medicinal breakthroughs
Can literally be said for any period of history
>ongoing globalization allowing multiculturalism and a wider connection between times
So like the roman empire? Didn't work out well then doesn't work out well now
>relatively peaceful time in history
It's not any peaceful than it was during "peaceful" periods of history, in 200 years school books will be full of footnotes about micro conflicts all over the world that major TVs and newspaper aren't reporting for the sole fact that nobody gives as fuck if people in some african,korean or indonesian shithole are killing each other in the hundreds.
>we literally improve no matter what we do in nearly all aspects
Same as point number 2.

Except a western worker would never tolerate being a sweetshop worker nowadays. Not to mention people aren't going to take a wage they can't do anything with. People aren't going to constantly undercut each other to their own defeat.

People also dont have a hivemind. They can only see things from their individual perspective and without all the information.
Also people are not good, they will only do what gives them benefits.
You need only to look some documentary or a book about XIX century work conditions to realize how your ideas would work in the real word. People are bad. People in positions of power are much worse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law

Also, youre a bitch for trying to project the present into the past. If people enacted those laws it was because they felt it was needed given their own circumstances. We dont need to return to pre-XIX century labour laws. WTF is wrong with you? You want to return to those conditions? That prosperity? Where is this nostalgia coming from? America is #1 power in the world and yet you feel the need to imitate Bangladesh in labour laws?

Work conditions were shit because people had no standards and no options, yet they knew it was shit so they forced changes to be made. Some changes were supposed to be for them but in reality were against them. If minwage was the only thing preventing corporations for paying people 10 cents an hour, most people who be working for minwage, but in reality most people make much more than it, especially factory workers and tradesmen. How many literal retards and NEETs would like a job but can't get one because they're not worth minwage? I know a guy who does deliveries in NYC and usually doesn't even make minwage but likes the job regardless, if it was a different job or he wasn't apart of the grey economy then he couldn't do that, instead the law would be taking away his choices for the benefit of corporations and unions.
The west isn't Bangladesh, if labor laws disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't become Bangladesh. Additionally, if someone wants to work in the coal mines and get black lung, that's there business, if that's the only job they can get, it's also their business to start a union and change the working conditions, which they historically did. I believe the workers should manage themselves and their own business, not anyone else's and not through the government thinking one size fits all.

Historical example plz.

The individual market actor (being a creature of vanity) desires the attention and approbation of his peers. All desire and motivations can be reduced to this intrinsic principle; neither wealth nor philosophy will satisfy if it does not serve this end. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (paraphrased)

>Conclusion:

Humanity will love each other when the supply of attention and praise available floods the attention whore market to such an extent as to make both as available to all as air and sunlight.

Veeky Forums is latest iteration in this moonshot for world peace and understanding. Facebook and Redshit come close but fail as attention is horded by karma/likes drowning out new ideas/seekers of attention. Only anonymous' ability to fade into obscurity at the moment attention is granted permits prefect fungibility of attention as currency and a safeguard against the wealth hoarding instinct that drives us all to fuck over each other.

Amazing how we got along just fine for thousands of years without those programs. It's almost as if the rich can always pay one half of the poor to kill the other half when they start stirring up trouble.....

>hurrrdurrr i saw one bad thing today

But you just listed four pretty big ones.

>Veeky Forums is latest iteration in this moonshot for world peace and understanding. Facebook and Redshit come close but fail as attention is horded by karma/likes drowning out new ideas/seekers of attention. Only anonymous' ability to fade into obscurity at the moment attention is granted permits prefect fungibility of attention as currency and a safeguard against the wealth hoarding instinct that drives us all to fuck over each other.

This is one of the most interesting things I've read all day. Please continue this provacative theory. I'm very interested in Attention Economy, and how networked computers are fulfilling this role.

holy fucking shit has nobody on this board taken a basic economies class how the fuck does minimum wage hurt the poor
if it gives them more money to spend on consumer goods does nobody understand any keynesian economics?

This isn't relevant to history

fiery homosexual.

Irishman here, and I kek'd heartily.