Mike E

And how do you expect corporations to pay...for everyone? This is the problem, that isn't enough. And having the large corporations pay tax to support people that don't directly support them in return, will simply push them out of the states. 

 

I think if there is one thing you can agree with, it is this; corporations are already trying to avoid taxes. 

If people who are lazy at work still deserve a living wage, why not just give everyone a living wage as a handout from the government, and let employers pay their employees what they want?

I'm hardly "pro" but that is a very interesting idea. In fact I have never actually heard it before. 

 

The problem is of course; where does the government get the money, which would have to come from taxes. 

All a sanctioned raise to $15.00/hr does is make that fifteen bux worth whatever the minimum wage was before.

I couldn't say that any better. 

If their employees (I don't know why you put it in quotes, is McDonalds transferring to unpaid interns now?) are 20 year olds cleaning toilets, should they earn more money then? What goes age have to do with this?

Raising the minimum wage will have obvious problems? I'm no American historian, but I am almost positive that the US didn't collapse into economic ruin when the minimum wage went up from zero dollars an hour.

It was in quotes because you referenced "its employees" in your older comment. Age itself has little to do with it, outside of the fact that a 40 y/o should have a career by his/her age, and not be cleaning toilets at MikkyD's for his/her income. A 20 y/o that needs a quick job, sure. 

 

True, but when was the last time we lived in a semi-controlled bubble economy? Might as well say that because our economy has never collapsed on the basis of inflation, we should continue to inflate...and you still haven't actually responded to my claims. Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 is financially & economically unsustainable in the long term, much like our bubblenomics of today. 

Right, you convinced me, let's have McDonalds continue to rake in massive profits while its employees apply for food stamps. It's their fault they're not successful, after all.

If "their employees" are 40 y/o's cleaning toilets, yes they will be on food stamps. 

 

And nobody has debunked the obvious problems associated with raising the MW. 

Nobody has to make minimum wage long-term. This is the reality we're living in, right now. I know that they're not meant to be this way, but that's just how it turned out.

Why raise it to $150? That's not the argument. The argument is that it has to be a living wage. If you live in some kind of super-rich area with hilariously high rent prices *coughSanFrancough* then yeah, you probably can't live in fifteen bucks either and it will have to be higher.

The government is supposed to represent the will of the people and fight for their prosperity. Yours doesn't, that's your problem. I'm saying what should be done, not what, realistically, will be done.

Basically you're suggesting we compromise successful people because the unsuccessful are... not successful financially. Yes, the world, economy, ane job market are not perfect, but that's not a reason to believe they can't improve.

Reward success, not the lack of it.

But it shouldn't have to be a policing living wage, in fact, it...should not. The goal here is to help people get started in life, not drag them with a string. And by not raising the minimum wage for *all*, those in more important positions, that can actually become careers, can be benefitted. It's arguably not humane, but economics shouldn't be. Emotions don't make for smarter or rational decisions in government.

Why not raise the minimum wage to $150? It'll have no additional effect.

Government is supposed to do a lot of things, which they manage to do unsuccessfully almost every time. Raising minimum wage hurts many, and unfaily never benefits few. Never mind that inflation hurts investments as well. So "that guy" making $20 just had his worth plummet.

I fail to see how raising the minimum wage can have a successful outcome, simply put; it can not and would not. Businesses would layoff so they can continue to even pay their employees, the price of labor skyrockets and automation becomes more wide-spread, inflation causes the universal Purchasing Power of the population to plummet, large corporations will need to borrow more in an attempt to keep their investments afloat. It's no different than Greenspan economics, basically.

Look at what two vehicles make an appearance; 

 

But who can actually claim that? The government is comprised of a few old rich guys, while the "free market" is made up of everyone. Regional markets are also independent of each other, there is no collection of power here.

 

In a perfect world, we don't need regulations...but regulations do not need to come from a group of old rich guys. 

 

The problem with your ideology is that you suggest we make MW jobs long-term by default. They aren't meant to be that, hence the need of advancement. Even if you don't have a college degree one can advance in position, whether it be coming from a MW job or not. 

 

Yes, government benefits the civilians. 

 

And, as mandatory; if we raise the minimum wage to $15, why stop there? Let's make it $150 while we are at it. 

Well, maybe I should condense my thoughts a bit;

- Raising the Minimum Wage follows along the lines of "short term benefit, long term troubles". The inevitable inflation, small business going bust, large layoffs, and push for automation leave workers in a worse position than they were in before.

- Because of inflation, purchasing power amongst citizens is universally decreased. This would primarily effect those who don't receive any, or major pay increases along with everyone else.  

- Workers have at least as much influence in a free market than the de-facto controlled one we live in now. Why should the government set *a* Minimum Wage, but the market *can't*?

 

In a perfect world, MW jobs are not long-term, of course the world isn't, and will never be, "perfect". This doesn't excuse an action that actually encourages one to stay in an economic position. Individually and as a whole, it is a good thing to strive academically and economically. 

Deserve? 

 

If Person A works 40 hours a week in a demanding position, he deserves to be payed a greater amount than...

 

Person B, who works 40 hours at the same place, in a less demanding position. 

 

B being payed as much as A is nonsensical in this example. 

 

The whole point of removing the MW is that no-one can determine an average over how much everyone should be paid. As I mentioned, people are ******** over getting paid $10 an hour, what makes you think they will accept getting paid less?

 

A part-time toilet cleaner at McDonald's doesn't deserve to be paid $15 an hour, heck, $10 an hour. 

 

That person getting paid $20 will have a reduced purchasing power thanks to the effects of everyone else receiving higher wages...and what makes you think companies can pay higher-wages? I'm not a huge fan of large corporations, but even their revenue will go down, causing investments to drop among other things.

 

Raising the Minimum Wage is based on the false ideology that spending creates an economy, in this regard it is no different than 0% interest rates. 

 

There's also the issue of; raising the MW lowers the demand for labor. 

Have you ever worked for minimum wage? You're scheduled for up to an hour less per week than what counts as full-time, if they can help it you're scheduled an hour less per shift than necessary for you to get a lunch break. You can, in theory, get another "full time" job and work more hours there, but good luck getting the schedules to sync up.

What they're "actually worth" is as little as humanly possible. We got through this in the industrial era. That number is forced by the government so people can actually live on this money and not end up unable to make ends meet in a job that, as Crashbot says, used to be a thing that you did on the side for beer money but is now the primary source of income for some people.

Yes, part-time at that. Of course companies will try to skirt around a higher range, but actually, blurring the lines between part and full time could help that

And you think people would be willing to work for cents? This could just be in my area, but the Minimum Wage acts as an excuse to pay people less than what they actually deserve. Simply raising it would have potentially devastating long term economic effects, and in the end, would be unfair who deserve more.

As already discussed, what is going to happen to someone making $20 when the minimum is raised to $15, from ~$10? They will effectively be worth less, despite potentially getting paid what they are worth in the first place.

Deflating the currency to match the MM, rather than the opposite, would serve to increase a workers' purchasing power.

I may be optimistic, but I think the 2S35 we will see will be the Armata based version, not the modified T-90 version.

I forget where I heard this from, but that has actually been confirmed. It was something like "The Armata family of vehicles will be presented; including T-14, T-15, T-16, and 2S35". Can't confirm this though. 

Raising the MW effectively leads to inflation, which leads to a less valuable currency, which leads to less purchasing power as already noted. It is basically a never ending spiral of doom (sound effects here) because the Fed is allowing for more inflation to begin with, thanks to low interest rates and QE.

 

I think there are a few solutions; 

- Establish a higher MW for full time employees, and a lower MW for part-time employees. 

- Slowly deflate the currency, so a higher MW can be avoided. 

- Eventually rid of the MW, so employees can be paid what they are actually worth, and not a number forced upon the employer via government. 

2S35 hasn't been seen at the RAE grounds, and will be showed thanks to official confirmation. We may or may not see Kurganets, and I wouldn't be surprised to actually see it. 

 

Welcome to SH Mohamed 

I'm pretty sure that is a photo-shop, and the tank is still cardboard. 

 

Armored Warfare T-14 models are out...and they are pretty rough, hopefully UVG can suggest a thing or two (they also have time before it is added into the game). 

 

+1 LoooSeR, the leaks are amazing! - Mind if I re-post a few of the pictures somewhere else? 

 

Amazing pictures, LoooSeR. The ceramic modules look fairly thick, so I'd go out and say I'm impressed with Kurganets' armor layout. The Glacis is angled to the point where penetration is practically impossible. Side armor modules seem rather thick, as do the the ceramic plates in them. Now, for the LFP...

Interesting to see the Kurga recovery vehicle, seems like it would be a nice, useful machine.

Any mention if the hydropneumatic suspension can tilt?

I would assume he doesn't even know it has a hatch, with his profound lack of knowledge and all... Then again, according to him, the T-62 was a failed tank that wasn't an export success. Even though it was, until the T-72 came about.

Does anyone think we need a Western armor thread? You know, just to hide our inner Russian biases and all...   

EDIT; Speaking of the new French power pack, Gurkhan has an article on it.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/350s.html?m=1

Not go stray off topic, but; everyone's favorite reformer, BTD, thinks that the T-62's automatic ejector shoots the round peg into the cabin, where it bounces around and injures the crew.

After looking at it again, I'd say it is either a 2S1 or 2S3. 

just curious, how did you come across this board?

 

welcome aswell, prepare for some bad English, me and posters Esign Expendable and Loosver are all Native Russians 

I recommended he come here. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't say "You'll be fine if you have a Russian bias". 

BMP-3M modules were ERA as well.

...they were? Based off of thickness I always speculated they were NERA. 

So, the side armor is confirmed to be ERA?

VD models looked to have the same NERA as BMP-3M

The blog is back up if anyone is wondering. It needed, and needs edits, hence it going offline.

If you spot an error you can let the author know in the comment section.

Not sure, but it looks like an old school GPS-on-gun to my eye. That or it is a huge muzzle reference system.

Generally, they all look like crap. Can't wait to see an Oshkosh ICBM transporter, if they build one.