[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't think I could ever be convinced that a high, universal, national minimum wage is a good tool for helping the economy. There are so many pitfalls to it. First of all, there is no way that the minimum wage in Mississippi should be the same as the minimum wage in New York City. Sure, the New York McDonald's and Walmarts could probably absorb a $15 minimum wage. Restaurants and other businesses in Mississippi would either trim staff or go under. It would absolutely lead to lower employment and higher prices. If prices go up, then people aren't really any more wealthy.

Restaurants with tipped staff have a separate minimum wage anyway, minimum wage for servers in most of the US is below $3/hr. Beyond that, how is it possible that many other countries are capable of a $10, $12 minimum wage and plenty of businesses do just fine?

When people have more money, people spend more money. When someone making $7.25 an hour suddenly makes $10 an hour, that person goes out to dinner more often. That person then can buy a new car or make needed repairs on their older car. That person can then go on vacation to Mississippi and spend money at those restaurants.

It doesn't have to jump to $15 overnight, and it's unlikely to go that high. But to make it $12 across the board by 2020, and then link the minimum wage to the rate of inflation? How is that a crazy idea? $7.25 buys a lot less now than it did when it was instated. If politicians can get a Cost of Living increase every year--why can't average Americans have the same?

A 19 year old teenager is happy as can be making 9-10$ an hour in most parts of the country. A $15 minimum wage would basically take that job away from them.

1) Minimum wage is not 9-10 per hour federally. Some states/communities are at that or higher, but federal mandate is 7.25.

2) Nearly half of minimum wage workers are over the age of 24. These are not teenagers working to make a little extra spending money. These are people with children and apartments and car payments who cannot survive while their employers are paying CEOs millions annually.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...-minimum-wage/

3) Unemployment among youth workers--specifically black youth--is far higher than the actual unemployment rate (young black male unemployment rate, as of last July, was over 20%). Unemployment among youth is already high.

Don't forget there are already some anti poverty tools in the current tax code. A single mom making $10 an hour with a couple kids, doesn't pay any income taxes and gets about $4000-$5000 back at tax time due to things like the earned income credit.

I'm sure that $4000 refund in April is really helpful in November when the car needs new tires or in September when kids need clothes for school. Raise the minimum wage to a reasonable number and that woman can afford things all year, not just in April.

While I can buy into the argument that executive compensation has got out of control, you lose me when you say things like record corporate profits are an evil thing. Corporations aren't some evil beast. They are mostly made up of regular people's retirement funds. Corporations doing well is generally good for everyone.

Corporations are welcome to profits if they'd like. But if those profits are made while their employees are depending on welfare to make ends meet--that's not acceptable. If a corporation cannot turn a profit while fairly paying their employees, is that really a successful business model?

Socialistic type policies have pitfalls, and that can't really be denied. it doesn't mean that none of them should be done or considered. But the further you go down that road, the riskier the consequences become.

Unfettered socialism is obviously an issue. But clearly unfettered capitalism isn't doing anyone favors either. Sanders' brand of socialism is about reigning in the excesses of Wall Street and the corporate world to keep them from walking all over the poor and turning the middle class into the poor.

Again, I doubt that the end game is for $20 minimum wage by 2018 or free college for everyone immediately or for limiting CEO pay dramatically. The end game is likely a $12 min wage by 2020 and linking it to inflation in the future, for perhaps some community colleges to be free, state schools to be limited in their costs to something reasonable, and private universities can continue to charge what they please (though they'll likely have to come closer into line with state schools to compete). Perhaps limiting CEO pay to something like 100x what the lowest paid employee makes--doesn't stop the CEO from getting a raise, but it stops the CEO from taking a raise while leaving its lowest employees in the lurch.

I think there is a big chunk of independents who'd think like me and probably wouldn't vote for Sanders. If I was allowed to vote, I don't know what I would do if the choices were Sanders or one of the crazy republicans. I generally lean toward democrats mostly for social issues, but if they do go full Sanders, I don't think I could get behind that.

So what are the options? "Full Sanders" or a Republican who wants to start another war the country can't afford, who wants to take social issues back to 1950, who is all too happy to close the EPA and climate change be damned?

Sanders isn't likely to be able to pass the extreme parts of his presidential plan, because the GOP likely will control the House and/or Senate for at last most of his term. Any GOP candidate with a crazy idea is likely to get that idea passed because he's got lots of support behind him.

Not to mention the part about bringing in probably 2 new SCOTUS judges in those four years. I do not want any one of the GOP candidates choosing a justice that'll likely be making major decisions for this country for the next 20+ years.